B.D.Agrawal, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned company judge dated August 16, 1982, in Company Petition No. 7 of 1982;
(2.) The petition giving rise to the appeal was presented by the respondent creditor against the appellant on May 21, 1982, under Section 439(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of the company. Learned company judge directed notice to issue. In compliance with the order dated May 21, 1982, notice was issued to the company and also to the directors for August 16, 1982, under registered cover. The office reported that acknowledgments had not returned nor were the notices received back undelivered. Learned company judge thereupon passed the impugned order on August 16, 1982, which reads : "Service held sufficient on the respondent company under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court. The petition for winding up shall be advertised in the newspaper, Hindustan Times, published from New Delhi and Nav Bharat Times, also published from New Delhi, which is in Hindi. The petitioner shall get three advertisements made within a month. An affidavit along with the newspapers may be filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. List the case immediately after the expiry of six weeks." The petition was accordingly advertised in the Hindustan Times and Nav Bharat Times, Delhi, on September 8, 1982. The appellants' counsel who had put in appearance on August 17, 1982, applied on September 9, 1912, for the stay of the operation of the order dated August 16, 1982. Since the advertisement had come out already, this application was rejected on September 13, 1982, being infructuous.
(3.) Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that advertisement could not issue without affording opportunity to the appellant to oppose the same. It is urged also that notice issued under order dated May 21, 1982, was not served upon all the directors of the appellant company and that the advertisement is defective since it was not made in the Official Gazette. All these contentions were countered by the respondent's learned counsel, Sri Sudhir Chandra.;