INDO ROLHARD INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. M. K. MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises in this appeal is whether the company court can order winding up of a company without ordering the petition to be advertised.

(2.) The appellant is a company. A petition was filed by two shareholders for winding up of the company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the company court. The company court (learned single judge) by the impugned order: (a) admitted the petition; (b) directed the company to be wound up; (c) appointed the official liquidator and directed him to take charge of the assets and records of the company and proceed in accordance with law and (d) directed the citation to be published in the "Statesman" (English) and "Jansatta" (Hindi) for 16.03.2009. All these directions were issued in a single order impugned in the present appeal passed on 16.02.2009; the relevant paragraph is quoted below:

(3.) Counsel for the appellant-company contends on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Conduits (P) Ltd. v. S.S. Arora, 1967 37 CompCas 786that the procedure adopted by the learned company judge is unsustainable and that an order for winding up cannot be passed before publishing the advertisement. The contention appears to us to be sound. The judgment cited above lists the steps involved in ordering the winding up of a company under the supervision of the High Court. It was observed (@ page 788): -