admitted to have received the correspondence sent by the Company. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the original Petitioner produced RPAD receipts of the earlier correspondence, which show that in the past also some other persons from the household of the Applicant has signed in acknowledgement. The learned counsel further submitted that there was a public notice given of the hearing and the Applicant who is actively litigating against the Petitioner Company was fully aware of the hearing of the Company Scheme Petition. It was also submitted that from the correspondence annexed, it is clear that the Applicant was aware that the scheme petition was being filed. The learned counsel submitted that the argument that the scheme is against the interest of the Company cannot be made by the Applicant who has filed a petition for winding up against the Company. It was submitted that all other shareholders, constituting 99.98% of the total paid up capital found the scheme to be viable and in the interest of the Petitioner Company. The learned counsel submitted that the statement regarding grant of shares after the scheme misconstrued by the learned counsel for the Applicant as the order dated 16 August 2012 does not affect the operation of clause 12.1 and 12.2 of the scheme which state that one fully paid up share of Midco will be offered against every 11116 fully paid up equity share of Oilco, and in case any shareholder is required to issue a fraction of a share, he be entitled to be paid cash consideration. The learned counsel submitted that accordingly the Applicant has
