(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby Company Application filed by the Respondent-company has been allowed and an ex-parte order of winding up dated 25th April 1997 has been set aside.
(2.) THE Company Petition was admitted on 2nd March 1995. The advertisements took place on 14th April, 1995. It is not in dispute that after admission of the Company Petition, notice in terms of Rule 28 of the Company Court Rules was not served on the Respondent-Company. Rule 28 postulates that a notice in the prescribed form together with a copy of the Petition shall be served on the company on its registered office or principal place of business. Rules also postulate filing of affidavit of service placing on record the fact of service on the Company. It is also postulated that in default of compliance with the requirements of the Rules as regards the advertisement and service of the Petition, the Petition is required to be posted for orders of the Company Judge whereupon either the Petition may be dismissed or such further directions as the Judge may think fit be issued.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Advocates of the Respondent-company were supplied, on 31st August 1995, copy of the Company Petition; the order dated 2nd March 1995 admitting the Petition and copies of the public advertisements dated 14th April 1995 when the said Advocates had asked for these documents in terms of their letter dated 22nd August 1995 in relation to Summary Suit No.3498 of 1992 between the parties. It has been contended that in the Application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order of winding up, no explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why steps were not taken from August 1995 till filing of the Company Application in August 1997.