The Company also filed an application that the winding up petition filed by the respondent be taken off the file and be dismissed and that the petition in the meantime be number advertised.
397 and 398 of the Companies Act.
The respondent claimed that it was just and equitable within the meaning of s. 443 f of the Companies Act, 1956, to make an order for companypulsory winding up, because one of the three factories of the Company had been closed, that the accounts of the Company were number being shown to the respondent, that numbermeeting of the Company had been held, numberbalance sheet had been prepared and a letter of resignation purported to be signed 430 by the respondent had been forged.
The companypany challenges that order in this appeal.
H. R. Khanna, J., held that the appropriate remedy of the respondent on the allegations of mismanagement of the affairs of the Company and oppression of the minority shareholders by the group of Anandi Lal was to file a petition under ss.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 7, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Company Appeal No.
In appeal against the order passed by H. R. Khanna, J., the High Court of Delhi held that under the Companies Court Rules, 1959, once a petition is admitted to the file, the Court is bound forthwith to advertise the petition.
On July 18, 1966, Capoor, J., directed that numberice of the petition be issued to the appellant Company.
3 of 1967.
The learned Judge directed that the petition be number advertised and be.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The order has number been formally drawn up, and it is number clear whether by that order it was intended to call upon the Company to show cause why the petition should number be admitted, or that by the order the petition was admitted and numberice under r. 96 of the Companies Court Rules, 1959 was issued.
The respon dent who is a director of the Company presented a petition in the High Court of Delhi under ss.
433 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order for companypulsory winding up of the Company.
C. Khanna and Maharaj Krishan Chawla, for the respon dent.
1082 of 1967.
N. Khanna and Harbans Singh, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellants private limited Company is engaged in the manufacture of electric companyduit pipes.
the petition was acting with ulterior motive and his attempt to obtain an order for winding up was unreasonable.
The appellant Company filed its reply companytroverting the allegations made by the respondent.
