TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to satisfy this Court that they were “duly authorised” by the petitioning creditors to make and file the affidavit verifying the instant winding-up petition, by producing valid resolutions adopted by the Board of directors of the petitioning-creditors supported by powers of attorney given in their favour by the petitioning-creditors. Let such documents be produced before this Court on 29th January, 2015. - CA No.786 of 2014 With CP No.1122 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2015 - The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr.Advocate, Mrs. Moushumi Bhattacharya, Mrs. Smita Mukherjee, Mr.Udit Mendiratte, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Mr. Tilak Kr. Bose, Sr. Advocates, Mr.Saunak Mitra, Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company, if a winding up order is passed, it relates back to the date of the presentation of the winding up petition. If on the date when the petition was presented, there was no proper verification according to law, then there was no petition at all on which the Court could issue directions for advertisement. He, thereafter, referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the same matter [Mool Chand Wahi Vs. National Paints (Private) Ltd. and Another] reported in Vol. 60 Company Cases 402, wherein the Division Bench upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge. He also relied on a decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Tayal Potteries and Another Vs. Macroplast Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m that the power of attorney holders have deposed for the principals for the acts done by the principals not by the power of attorney holders. On the other hand, the learned senior advocate representing the petitioning creditors referred to and relied on the said Rule and in particular, Form no.3 provided under the said Rule. He submitted that if one barely glances at Form no.3, it would appear therefrom that it provides as to how an affidavit verifying a winding up petition is to be made. He, thereafter, referred to the affidavit verifying the instant petition and submitted that the same has been made in accordance with Form no.3, as provided under the said Rule. He also sought to distinguish the judgments of the High Courts, including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and file the affidavit in support of a petition. In the fact of the present case it is noticed that the affidavit verifying the instant petition is clearly in consonance with Form no.3, as required under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. None of the judgments of the High Courts, which have been referred to on behalf of the company, have been rendered at the preliminary stage, before a winding up petition is taken up for consideration on its merit, and as such, are clearly distinguishable. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned, the same was rendered in the context of interpretation of the word, acts , as provided under Order 3 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in its relation to exercise of pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
