Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2017 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1229 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTWinding up petition - petition not been filed by a competent person - Held that:- All it says is that, 'the deponent was the pairokar in the aforesaid case and well acquainted with the facts deposed to below'. It is only in the application dated September 24, 1998 that for the first time it was being stated that the petitioners had duly authorised Satyendra Veer to file the petition. This appears to be an afterthought and only with a view to get rid of the difficulty in complying with the provisions of rule 21 of the Rules. Besides, the court does not see any sufficient reason to grant leave to the pairokar to file this petition especially in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit and the contention of the respondent that the instant petition has been engineered by Satyendra Veer Singh who was the ex-director of the respondent-company and also had serious litigation with the present board of directors. Consequently, I see no reason to accept the prayer made and to grant leave to accept the affidavit already filed. The supporting affidavit is not in accordance with rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules. On the issue of giving opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect, it is noticed that company secretary Devraj Gupta in the affidavit filed in support of the petition has stated that company petition has been drafted on his instructions. Hence, the defect cannot be cured by filing the affidavit of some other competent person. Hence, the company petition is dismissed having not been filed by a competent person.
|