G.L. Chopra, J. - (1.) CERTAIN preliminary objections to the maintainability of this petition under S. 166, Indian Companies Act are raised by the official liquidators of the respondent -company (in voluntary liquidation). The case has been heard on the following preliminary issues - 1. Have the petitioners, as fully paid -up contributories, no locus standi to file this petition? -On respondent.
(2.) IS the petition properly signed and verified? -On petitioner. Whether the petition is not maintainable because of an earlier petition by S. Santokh Singh under S. 221, Indian Companies Act, which is still pending? -On respondent.
(3.) HAS the petition not been properly filed on behalf of Princess Rajindar Kumari of Lambi and Rani Ranbir Kaur of Kalsia? If so, what is its effect? -On respondent Is petitioner No. 1 (Col. Raja Surrindar Singh) estopped from presenting the present petition? -On respondent. (2) As regards issue No. 1, it is urged that all the petitioners are holders of fully paid -up shares and they therefore ought to have alleged in the petition that, on the winding -up of the company, there will be left, after providing for liabilities of the company and payment of expenses of winding -up, a substantial surplus for being distributed among the share -holders. As no such allegation is made the petition is liable to be summarily dismissed without going into its merits. Reliance in this connection is placed on Ss. 156 and 158, Indian Companies Act and the decision in - 'Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Lajpat Rai Sawhney',, AIR 1950 EP 328 (A). The main basis of the contention is that a fully paid -up share -holder of a limited concern, as provided by S. 156, is not required, in the event of its winding -up, to contribute to the assets of the company. That being so, he cannot be regarded as a "contributory", as the term Is defined by S. 158; and consequently he cannot present an application for an order of compulsory winding -up under S. 166 of the Act.;