Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) THE same petitioner has sought winding up of three companies on the ground of the companies being unable to pay their debts. The matters in issue are identical except as to the quantum of claim in the three petitions.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to have supplied divers varieties of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ("IMFL") to the companies for a substantial period. The petition was filed in the name of a proprietorship concern of which one Erach Medhora was formerly the prop'rietor. The petitions were verified by the widow of the erstwhile proprietor describing herself as the "proprietress of the petitioner -company". A point was taken in the affidavits filed by the companies that the proprietorship concern was non -existent upon the death of Erach Medhora and that the petitions were not maintainable. Applications were made for amending the cause titles relating to the three petitions. The companies opposed the applications on the ground that the claim being the subject -matter of the petitions, would be barred as on the date of making the application for amendment. The companies also contended that in the absence of a succession certificate of the deceased proprietor being produced, the amendments could not be allowed nor could the petition be taken up. The amendment applications were allowed on the ground that there was misdescription in the cause titles. The objections taken by the companies were, however, permitted to be carried over till the petitions were heard for admission. In one of the matters, the concerned company preferred the appeal which was dismissed with the observation that the amendment was permitted subject to the concerned company being permitted to carry all objections to the hearing stage.
(3.) AT the outset, the company submits that the petition is not maintainable as it is only the order of amendment passed on April 16, 2007, which should be reckoned as the date of filing of the petitions and on such date, the claims in each case would be barred by the laws of limitation. The judgments reported at Neogi Ghose and Co. v. Sardar Nehal Singh : 35 CWN 432; Mangharam Rupchand Firm v. Haji Sorik Punhoo, AIR 1939 Sind 172 and Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi v. Hiraji Premaji Marwadi , are placed by the company in support of its contention that even if the amendment is allowed, the petition should be deemed to have been filed on the date of the amendment or, at the highest, on the date of the making of the application for amendment.;