Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a company petition filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company. The winding up is sought essentially on the ground falling under Section 433 (e) of the Act (wrongly mentioned in petition as Section 433 (c)), i. e. , inability to pay debt. ( 2. ) IN support of this averment, the petitioner has made following averment in para. 10 of the petition : "that the petitioner-company has served legal notices upon the respondent by registered A. D. yet the exercise has turned futile because though the respondent is admitting its debt, acknowledging the notices but has failed to repay the loan amount. Copy of the notices dated January 7, 2003, February 7, 2003, March 7, 2003, are annexed and marked as annexures P/7, P/8 and P/9 respectively. " ( 3. ) SO far as annexures P7 and P8 are concerned, though they are described as notices they cannot be regarded to be so as satisfying the requirement of Section 434 of the Companies Act. In other words, neither annexure P7 nor annexure P8 are the legal notices within the meaning of Section 434 ibid. In this view of the matter no petition on the ground falling under Section 433 (e) can be filed by the petitioner on the strength of so-called notices annexures P7 and P8. ( 4. ) SO far as notice annexure P9 is concerned, the same though described to be a notice given under Section 434 of the Act, yet in my view it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 434 ibid. ( 5. ) MERE perusal of Section 434 (1) (a) of the Act would indicate that it uses the expression "has served on the company, by causing it to be delivered at its registered office, by registered post or otherwise, a demand under his hand requiring the company to pay the sum so due and the company has for three weeks thereafter neglected to pay the sum, or to secure or compound for it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor". ( 6. ) SO, it is obligatory upon the petitioner to deliver the notice on the company. It is only then the petitioner can file a petition under Section 433 (e ). ( 7. ) FIRSTLY, in para. ( 6. ) SO, it is obligatory upon the petitioner to deliver the notice on the company. It is only then the petitioner can file a petition under Section 433 (e ). ( 7. ) FIRSTLY, in para. 10, though there is an averment that legal notices are served by registered AD, no such documents is filed in support of this averment. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence. Such as (i) when it was sent, (ii) when it was served, (iii) on whom it was served, (iv) who received on behalf of company. The petitioner has also not filed any RAD served on the company. In the absence of such evidence, which alone is material for maintaining the petition, the petition cannot be held maintainable. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended by placing reliance on one signature on annexure P9 that it is served on company. I do not agree. Firstly, there is no averment to this effect in the petition. Secondly, what is averred in the petition (i. e. , para. 10) is just contrary to this submission. Thirdly, in the absence of any factual foundation laid in the petition this Court is unable to accept that the so-called signature is of any person representing the company. In other words, in the absence of any seal of the company, one cannot say that the person signing represent the company. In any case, all this has got to be pleaded being a pure question of fact and then only, the issue could be examined in the context of the requirement of Section 434 of the Act. In the absence of any documents in support of averments made in para. , this Court cannot entertain the company petition. It is premature for want of proper notice under Section 434 of the Act. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended that he may be granted time to amend the petition. I do not agree. Firstly, the petition is pending since last two years and no efforts were made to amend the petition. Secondly, it is not something which has come in existence during the pendency of petition as subsequent event. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then contended that he may be granted time to amend the petition. I do not agree. Firstly, the petition is pending since last two years and no efforts were made to amend the petition. Secondly, it is not something which has come in existence during the pendency of petition as subsequent event. Thirdly, what is required to be pleaded as one of the material facts in the petition for its maintainability has got to be so in the petition itself and cannot be introduced by way of amendment. What is more a matter of concern is that petitioner has woken up after it is brought to their notice by the court. Indeed, it is not for the court to point out the infirmities in the petition but it can be made basis to reject the petition. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the petition 1 filed under Section 433 (e) is not properly filed. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.