JUDGMENT 1. - It is a company application filed by Smt. Uma Sanghi in company petition No. 19/87. In company petition No. 19/87 this Court under its order dated 27.7.90 had ordered that the company M/s India Motors Pvt. Ltd. be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as liquidator to the company in liquidation. 2. An application has been filed which was registered as company application No. 1/91 in the said company petition No. 19/87 in which it has been prayed by Smt. Uma Sanghi, one of the respondents to the petition that the winding up order made by this Court may kindly be recalled and the reason made in the said application is that she did not appoint Shri Vinodi Lal Mathur as her advocate. It has also been stated in the said application that a notice of the petition Under Section 433 read with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) was never served on her nor a copy of the petition was served on her, and all the proceedings have been taken against her without notice to her. It has also been stated that the company involved i.e. M/s India Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer belongs to her exclusively and no other non- petitioner to the main petition has any right in the said company and the petitioner concealed the facts, that dispute having arisen between the petitioner and respondents and that all the members of Sanghi families mutually agreed to separate, divide/partition all the properties, assests and liabilities shares of the companies, and the disputes were referred to the sale arbitrator Shri H.K. Sanghi son of Shri M.P. Sanghi, who gave his award and the said award was filed in the Delhi High Court by one V.K. Sanghi. The arbitration proceedings were stayed by the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court directed the arbitrator to proceed further but stayed the execution of the award. Thereafter the arbitrator pronounced the award also & the court proceeded to make it the rule of the court which is pending. 3. The arbitration proceedings were stayed by the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court directed the arbitrator to proceed further but stayed the execution of the award. Thereafter the arbitrator pronounced the award also & the court proceeded to make it the rule of the court which is pending. 3. It was not necessary for this Court to have issued any notice that the company petition be admitted - advertised under Rule 96 of the Company Court Rules, 1959 for short the Rules) and this Court could have ordered the admission of the company petition and advertisement, but this Court had discretion to direct issue of notices, and this Court had issued notices which were served and Shri V.L. Mathur Advocate entered a caveat. There is no power signed by Smt. Uma Sanghi in favour of Shri V.L. Mathur and it does appear that Shri V.L. Mathur was representing Smt. Uma Sanghi in many other cases and it was one Shri Giraj Purohit who had signed power on behalf of Smt. Uma Sanghi authorising Shri V.L. Mathur to put in appearance on her behalf. It is not known whether Girraj Prasad was General Power of Attorney Holder of Uma Singhi or not Shri V.L. Mathur was examined in this Court and he has admitted that Girraj Prasad has singned power on behalf of Uma Sanghi and he has entered caveat on behalf of Uma Sanghi. 4. After the company petition was admitted and published in newspapers, Rajasthan Gazette, none including Uma Sanghi put in appearance to answer the show cause notice and, therefore, as said earlier merely because at the stage of pre-admission stage, somebody appears on behalf of Uma Sanghi and he was not authorised, could not have made any difference but the facts of this case are such that I am inclined to exercise my powers vested in Rule 9 of the Rules. 5. The facts are that the petition is not filed by any creditor or contributor but is by one N.K. Sanghi who was a Director of the company till July 1985 when he claims to have resinged and thereafter continued to be a share-holder. A look at the petition will show that he had concealed some of the facts that the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the arbitrator gave its award. A look at the petition will show that he had concealed some of the facts that the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the arbitrator gave its award. Thus, because of the concealment of these material and relevant facts form the petition, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the winding up order which was made should be set aside and withdrawn and only after hearing Uma Sanghi and her counsel, the company petition should be decided afresh as to whether it is a case for making any winding up order or not? 6. Consequently, I hereby allow this company application No. 1/91 in S.B. Company Petition No. 19/87 and hereby recall my order dated 27.7.90 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- by Uma Sanghi Because a lot of expenses have been incurred by the petitioner in publication/advertisement of the company petition in news-papers and Rajasthan Gazette. The costs should be paid within three weeks to the counsel for the petitioner by a draft in favour of the petitioner. 7. I am of the opinion that meanwhile the official liquidator shall continue to be the provisional liquidator of the company in the case.Petition Allowed. *******