LexM/S ASSOCIATED JOURNALS versus THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. MIS ASSOCIATED JOURNALS A v. THE MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD . JULY 11, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] B Company Law: Companies (Court) Rules, 1959-Rules 21 and 18-Form No.3- Affidavit verifying the Winding-up petition-Not as per Rule 2 I-Held: Defect C is curable by filing fresh affidavit. The affidavit filed by Respondent verifying the Winding-Up petition was not in accordance with Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The Company Judge allowed the Respondent to correct the defect by filing a fresh D affidavit. High Court upheld the judgment of Company Judge. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Rules are undoubtedly statutory and the forms are to be E adopted wherever they are applicable. But the Rules of procedure cannot be a tool to circumvent the justice. In fact, the Rules are laid to help for speedy disposal of justice. This Court has in catena of decisions held that substantial compliance is enough. The Rules relating to the affidavit and the verification cannot be ordinarily brushed aside, but then what is required to be seen is whether the petition substantially complies with the requirements and, F secondly, even when there is some breach or omission, whether it can be fatal to the petition. A careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent and Form No.3 as prescribed under Rule 21 would show that there is substantial compliance of the said Rule. [446-E, G, H; 447-CJ 1.2. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in an identical matter has also G opined that even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of affidavit, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the same. In the instant case, the same liberty was given to the respondent by the Company Judge as also by the High Court. [446-E, F) ~9 H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Malhotra Steel Syndicate v. Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd., (1993] Suppl. 3 sec 565, relied on. Khaitan Overseas & Finance Ltd. v. Dhandhania Bros. P. Ltd., (2002) 1 .. Comp LJ 274, referred to. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 183 of2000. From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, dated 27.I0.1997 in Company Appeal No. 1 (CIA) of 1994. c J.B. Dadachanji & Co. (N.P.) for the Appellant. Pragya Singh Baghel, Debmalya Benerjee, R.N. Karanjawala and Manik Karanjawala for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. None appears for the appellant despite service of notice on the appellant. It appears that the previous counsel sought direction from this Court to discharge him as advocate-on-record. Notice was also sent by speed post E A.D./Courier to Mis Associated Journals Ltd., Lucknow, U.P. and Mis Associated Journals Ltd., New Delhi requesting them to contact them otherwise they will not be in a position to attend to the above matter and will seek direction from this Court for discharge as advocate-on-record. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2006, a submission was made by the F learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no reply has been received from the addressee till date and, therefore, further time may be granted. The matter was adjourned by four weeks. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. The counsel is also not present in the Court. We have heard Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, learned counsel appearing on G behalf of the respondent and also perused the original record which has been received from the High Court. ....,_ This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt.27.10.1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Company Appeal No.I of 1994. By the said order, the High Court dismissed H the said Company Appeal holding inter alia that the learned Company Judge ASSOCIATED JOURNALS r. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 44 J did not commit any error of law in allowing the respondent to file fresh A affidavit to remove the defects in verification of the company petition. The High Court further held that the finding of the learned. Company Judge regarding the sufficiency of the reasons for advertisement were not final. The said Company Appeal No. I of 1994 which has been dismissed by the High Court had been filed by the appellant herein against the order B dt.10.01.1994 passed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.