KANAK LATA SAHA Vs. DIABARI TEA CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner attempted to serve the statutory notice at the registered office of the company. Such notice was returned to the petitioner with the postal remark "addressee not known". Another notice was served by the petitioner at the head office of the company. The petitioner received the acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of such notice by the company at its head office.

(2.) It was submitted that the presumption of the company's inability to pay could arise only upon statutory notice being received at the registered office of the company. This, it was submitted, had to be strictly construed and any other notice received by the company or the persons in management, would not suffice.

(3.) Held, since was disputed that the company had notice of the petitioner's demand and since no reply was used by the company in response of the petitioner's claim, even to indicate that the statutory notice was not in order, the company should not be afforded the luxury of urging such ground. The main purpose of a notice is to make the noticee aware. There was no denial in the affidavit used by the company that the company was aware of the stetutory notice having been issued. Merely because the petitioner cause not demonstrate that the statutory notice was served at the registered office of the company, would not be the ground enough for rejecting a winding up petition.