JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant feels aggrieved by the order dated 26-12-2011 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.P. No.165 of 2009. 2. The background, in brief, pertaining to the appeal is as under:- The appellant is a foreign bank having its operations in India. It is stated that credit facility for considerable amount was extended by the appellant in favour of the respondent. Alleging that the respondent committed default in repayment of the amount availed through credit facility, the appellant filed the company petition under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 with a prayer to order winding up of the respondent company. At the preliminary stage, a plea was raised to the effect that the company petition was filed through a General Power of Attorney (for short “GPA”) and that the same was not properly constituted. On noticing that the authority to file a company petition was not conferred upon the GPA, the appellant herein filed an application to receive a document dated 24-01-2000, which is said to have cured the defect. The learned single Judge refused to receive the same, through the order under appeal. It was pointed out that the original power of attorney as well as the deed, which is sought to be filed, do not empower the concerned person to institute the proceedings for winding up of the respondent company. Reference was also made to the articles of association of the appellant company. 3. Sri C.R. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that it is only the principal that can doubt the correctness of a GPA and as long as the appellant company did not doubt the GPA, there was no basis for the learned single Judge to refuse to accept the authorization. He submits that strictly speaking, the original power of attorney itself authorized the person to institute the proceedings, but on noticing that the expression “to institute winding up proceedings” was not incorporated, the deficiency was rectified by executing the document dated 24-01-2000. Learned counsel submits that the defect noticed by the company Court is certainly curable. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. LIMITED v. MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA (P) LIMITED (2002) 1 SCC 234 ). 4. Learned counsel submits that the defect noticed by the company Court is certainly curable. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.M.T.C. LIMITED v. MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA (P) LIMITED (2002) 1 SCC 234 ). 4. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that since the consequences that flow from a company petition filed for winding up are serious in nature, the Court is required to ensure that every step is meticulously followed. He submits that even according to the appellant, the original power of attorney is defective and inadequate and though an attempt was made to rectify it, the same did not accord with the articles of association of the appellant itself. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. KINGSTON COMPUTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (2011) 11 SCC 524 ). 5. The appellant instituted proceedings for winding up of the respondent company. Though the company petition was filed in 2009, it is still at the threshold. An objection raised about the form of GPA, who instituted proceedings, was considered at length. The appellant itself was satisfied that unless specific authorization is given to the GPA to institute the proceedings for winding up of a company, there cannot be any valid institution. Accordingly, the document dated 24-01-2000 was filed before the company Court with an application. 6. The proceedings that are instituted through GPA do not get completely vitiated on account of defect in the form of GPA. The defect is certainly curable. In M.M.T.C’s. Case (Supra 1), the Supreme Court took the view that the defect of such a nature can be cured or rectified by the concerned parties. 7. The judgment cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent was in relation to a different factual situation. In that case, the defect as to the competence of the person, who instituted the proceedings, was noticed and still no efforts were made to rectify it. Their Lordships took the view that as long as the defect remains unattended to, the proceedings cannot be said to be validly instituted. Such is not the case here. At any rate, once the appellant has taken steps to rectify the defect pointed out by the respondent, the matter must rest at that, at least for the present. Their Lordships took the view that as long as the defect remains unattended to, the proceedings cannot be said to be validly instituted. Such is not the case here. At any rate, once the appellant has taken steps to rectify the defect pointed out by the respondent, the matter must rest at that, at least for the present. If the dispute still persists, it can constitute the basis for framing an issue, but cannot be a ground to reject the company petition, or to keep it aside. 8. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. For the present, the company petition shall be treated as having been instituted properly. If the respondent still persists with its objection in this behalf, the company Court shall consider the feasibility of framing an issue on it. There shall be no order as to costs.