- (1.) THOUGH publication has been made in pursuance of the order of this court dated October 14, 198. 8, yet J find that this petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the Division Bench judgment of this court in Moot Chand Wahi v. National Paints (P.) Ltd. [1986] 60 Comp Cas 402, 404 ; [1986] 2 PLR 17. It has been ruled therein that "an affidavit which supports a company petition is treated as substantive evidence and where there is no affidavit, in accordance with law accompanying the petition, it is no petition in the eye of law". It has further been opined in this judgment that "the learned single judge rightly rejected the appellant's prayer to file a fresh affidavit properly sworn for the reason that if the amendment of a petition for winding up is allowed, it relates back to the date of its presentation. It would lead to a great deal of confusion if the appellant is allowed to swear in and supply a fresh affidavit at a later stage because rights of third parties would crop up. "
(2.) SO far as, the factual aspect of. the matter, in hand is concerned, the relevant paragraph (No. 2 ). of the affidavit of Satyendra Singh, filed in support of the petition, has been left blank. It reads ; "2. That the contents of accompanying petition marked 'a' contained in para Nos. . . . are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and the contents contained in para Nos. . . . are true to my belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom. "
(3.) THE verification underneath reads : "verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therefrom. ";