SANJAY KHANNA Vs. DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior counsel has appeared for the Respondent Company pursuant to a Caveat filed on its behalf. It is his contention that the present case in not a fit one for the issuance of even a Notice.

(2.) Mr. Badar Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Matipnal Conduits (P) Ltd. v. S.S. Arora. AIR 1968 SC 279, and to the following passage in particular .

(3.) Predicated on the above observations Mr. Ahmad contends that a Notice must automatically issue and that the Court has no discretion in this regard. In the first place the words 'may issue' used by the Apex Court clearly preserves the discretion of the Court even at the initial and threshold stage. The facts in that case were that the High Court had taken the view that it must, as soon as the petition is admitted, advertise the petition. This view was struck down specifically keeping Rule 96 of the Company (Court) Rules in perspective. It is my understanding that since the winding-up of a company is itself a discretionary relief, the Company Court is duty bound to consider, at the earliest stage, whether the winding-up petition should be entertained further.