3 M/s.Punjab and Sind Bank, however, opposes this application. It is their submission that they had filed their own petition for winding up of the Respondent company, namely, Company Petition No.63/2014. When this petition came up before this court at a pre-admission stage, by its order dated 31 October 2014, this court disposed of the petition holding that since the Respondent company was already ordered to be wound up by the order of this court dated 20 June 2014 in CP 425/2011, the Punjab and Sind Bank shall file their claim before the Official Liquidator. Whatever may be the order passed in the company petition of Punjab and Sind Bank, since the winding up order passed on Company Petition No.425/2011 on 20 June 2014 is without complying with the requirements of service of the notice under Rule 28 on the Respondent company, the winding up order will have to be set aside. Setting aside of the winding up order relegates the Respondent company to the stage post-admission. Now that the dispute between the original Petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. in Company Petition No.425/2011 and the Respondent company is settled, M/s.Punjab and Sind Bank, who were originally Petitioners in their own right claiming winding up of the company and whose petition was disposed of in view of the winding up order already passed, will have to be substituted in place of the original Petitioner-ICICI Bank. M/s.Punjab and Sind Bank may have to accordingly adopt steps for being substituted.
