SRI B.V. SRINIVASA, SMT. B.V. SARASAVALLI AND SMT. B. GEETHA RAMESH Vs. M/S. VINYASA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The company petition is filed under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the respondent company under the provisions of the Companies Act and for appointment of the official liquidator and some other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner in support of his allegations made in the petition, has produced innumerable documents. When the petition was listed for admission, the petition came to be dismissed by the following order:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that the said order came to be passed even without issue of notice to the respondent. Respondent had no opportunity to set out his case. He submits that from the documents now available on record, he is able to demonstrate that the order passed by the learned Company Judge is just and proper. He also submits that appellate court has a power to look into the pleadings, appreciate the evidence on record and pass the order which the Company Court can do. There is no quarrel with the said legal position. But the proceedings under the provisions of Company Act is original proceedings before the High Court. A statutory appeal is provided under the law. When once the statutory appeal is provided, the original authority has to set out the facts of the case and refer to the documents produced, if he wants to dismiss the petition as meritless, he has to give reasons. In the absence of the facts and the reasons in the order, the order passed by the learned Company Judge cannot be sustained. It is not a speaking order. The application of mind is not demonstrated in the order. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. In the result the following order is passed: - -