DEVA SUGARS LIMITED Vs. SICOM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in C. P. No. 170 of 1995 on the file of this court has filed this O. S. A. against the order dated August 23, 1996, in the said company petition, admitting the said petition for winding up of the appellant-company herein and directing advertisement of the petition in two english dailies and posting the petition for hearing on September 25, 1996. THE said company petition was filed under sections 433 (e), 434 (1) (a) and 439 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that the appellant company is unable to pay its debts. As per the company petition, as on August 31, 1995 , the amount due from the appellant herein was Rs. 3, 29, 15, 282. THE principal debtor thereto is one Rajadhiraj industries Limited and the appellant herein is the guarantor. However, in the guarantee agreement dated January 24, 1995 , between the parties it is also stated that the appellant herein would be treated as principal debtor jointly with the said Rajadhiraj industries Limited.

(2.) THE abovesaid sum is claimed pursuant to the loan granted by the respondent herein, which has to be repaid in several instalments, the first of which being payable on February 28, 1995. THE other instalments are payable in the months of May, august and November, 1995, and likewise in the succeeding years but all the subsequent instalments were not paid at all and statutory notice was given on August 11, 1995.

(3.) IN K. K. Arunachalam v. K. Nallusamy [1995] 2 LW 456, the division Bench judgment relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt it has been held thus : "we are unable to appreciate how after an order is passed it could be reversed by bringing it for being mentioned and getting the whole matter reconsidered. IN this case, the procedure adopted by the party for bringing up the matter for being mentioned on the ground that his counsel was not heard is not in accordance with law. " * But, it must be stated that in the above decision, there is no finding or material to show that the order referred to in the abovesaid passage was not signed by the learned single judge who passed the same. Where a judge wants to correct his order after its pronouncement, but before signing it, the above referred to observation of the Supreme Court alone would govern the case.