S.B Wad, J.:— This is a petition purportedly filed under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. B.P Gupta, is the creditor of the company and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, viz., Shri Suraj Parkash Gupta and Shrimati Madhuri Gupta, are the shareholders/directors. Petitioner No. 1 has claimed that the respondent company has not returned the loan of Rs. 1,26,334.46 in spite of repeated demands. He has further claimed an amount of Rs. 18,000 by way of salary as the secretary of the respondent company for the period between April 1, 1984, to March 31, 1985. So far as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the allegations are that they are illegally kept out of the management of the company. There are further allegations of mismanagement of the company, such as the illegal resolutions to appoint the chairman, the accumulation of losses of the company being far more than the paid-up capital and the losses exceeding 20 per cent of the paid-up capital. It is claimed that it is just and equitable to wind up the company, particularly so because the company is in the nature of a partnership.
2. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondents on the ground of the maintainability of the petition.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there cannot be a joint petition by a creditor and shareholders/directors. It is pointed out that such a misjoinder is contrary to Order 1, rule 1 and Order 2, rule 3. It is further asserted that rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, does not change the rule of misjoinder of parties and the cause of action as envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon AIR 1973 HP 23 (sic) in support of his submission.
4. In reply to the objections of the respondents, counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no bar for a joint petition by the creditor and the shareholder/director. Counsel submits that reading sections 433 and 434 together, such a joint application is clearly permissible. Under Order 1, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, several plaintiffs can be joined in one suit, but the right to relief must arise out of the same act or transaction or series of common acts or transactions. It is also necessary that there should a common question of law and fact. The petition of petitioner No. 1 can be founded only on the commercial insolvency of the company. On the other hand, the petition of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 is based on acts of mismanagement and oppression. The requirements of Order 1, rule 1, are not and cannot be fulfilled in the present petition. But the petition cannot be saved under Order 2, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, either, because the cause of action in the two sets of allegations are quite different. Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act provide the substantive heads under which a company petition can be filed. They do not lay down any procedure. rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, refers to the practice and procedure of the court and the application of the Civil Procedure Code. This rule is also not of any avail to the petitioner. The rule provides that the practice and procedure of the Court shall be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, “save as provided by the Act or by these rules”. There is no separate procedure prescribed under section 433 or 434 of the Companies Act in regard to the joinder of parties or causes of action.
5. There is yet another hurdle in the way of the petitioners. The petition is supported by an affidavit filed by petitioner No. 1 who is only a creditor. The allegations in regard to mismanagement and particularly the exclusion of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 from the management are matters of personal knowledge of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. They have not filed any affidavit supporting the petition. It is also correct that the affidavit is not properly verified as required by the Civil Procedure Code. It is a general verification stating that the contents of the above affidavit are true to “my” knowledge. The source of knowledge is not disclosed.
6. It has been brought to my notice that a similar petition was filed by the petitioners in 1980 being C.P No. 64 of 1980. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn on March 3, 1981. While dismissing the petition, B.N Kirpal J. has observed: “in view of the fact that some technical objections have been raised by the respondents with regard to the form of the petition, counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one”. It appears that the present petition also suffers from several legal infirmities.
7. The present petition can be treated as a valid petition only in regard to petitioner No. 1 and only in regard to the cause of action on the alleged dues on account of loan and salary. The petition be amended accordingly and the amended petition be filed. Let the petition be listed for admission on merits on July 14, 1986.