PREMLATA AGARWAL Vs. RATHI ISPAT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, has been heard by me along with a number of other similar applications. Factually, the position in all of them is the same. There was a winding up petition instituted by M/s. Mahalakshmi Traders against M/s. Rathi Ispat Ltd. which was Company Petition No. 66 of 1976. On this petition, a show cause notice was issued regarding the admission of the petition to the respondent-company. The company was served and then it appears that the matter was settled without the petition being admitted. The settlement was that the respondent - Company accepted the claim of the petitioner and paid some amount and then agreed to pay instalments of Rs. 1,000/- monthly. The final conclusions in the judgment dated 31st January, 1977, are in the following terms :-

(2.) These observations made by me are material in the context of the terminology of the Rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. That Rule reads as follows :-

(3.) Taking up the various alternatives contained in Rule 101 in seriatim. It has to be seen whether the original petitioner was not entitled to present the petition. He obviously was and, therefore, sub-rule (1) does not apply. Then, has he failed to advertise the petition within the time prescribed by the Rule or by the order of Court He has obviously not failed to do such things because the Court has not yet ordered citation. Therefore, the second alternative does not apply. The third alternative is : Has he consented to withdraw the petition or allowed it to be dismissed, or the hearing to be adjourned, or failed to appear in Court when it was called for in the Court on the day originally fixed for the hearing As pointed out above, the petitioner has not yet been admitted and the date of hearing has not been fixed. Therefore, this alternative does not apply, and finally, has the petitioner failed to apply for an order in terms of the prayer of the petition As noted above, the petitioner has settled the matter with the respondent - company, but the result of that settlement is still to be decided. It may be that the petitioner may still prosecute the original petition, in which case all these applicants can appear as supporting creditors.