The Company was carrying on extensive business in "futures" in gur, but the Company was formed not with the object of carrying on business in "futures' in gur alone, but in several other commodities ~1' well. The Company had immovable property and liauict assets of the total value of Rs. 2,54,000. There is no evidence that the Company was unable to pay its debts. Under s. 162 of the Indian Companies Act, the Court may make an order for winding up a Company if tJ1e Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the Company be wound up. In making au order for winding up on the ground that it is just and equitable that a Company should be wound up, the Court will consider the interests of the shareholders as well as of the creditors. Substratum of the (:;ompany is said to have disappeared when the object for which it was incorporated has substantially !ailed, or when it is impossible to carry on the business of the Company except at a Joss, or the existing and possible assets are insufficient to meet the existing liabilities. In the present case the object for which the Company was incorporated has not substantially failed, and it cannot be said that the Company could not carry on its business except at a loss, nor that its assets were insuflkient to meet its liabilities. On the view we have taken, there were no creditors to whom debts were payable by the Company. The appellants had, it is true, filed suits against the Company in respect of certain gur transactions on the footing that they had entered into transactions in the names of other persons. But those suits were dismissed. The business organisation of the Company cannot be said to have been destroyed, merely because the brokers who were acting as mediators in carrying out the business between the members had been discharged and their accounts settled. The services of the brokers could again be secured. The Company could always restart the business with the assets it possessed, and prosecute the objects for which it was incorporated. It is true that because of this long drawn out litigation, the Company's business has come to a stand-still. But we cannot on that ground direct that the Company be wound up. Primarily, the circumstances existing as at the date of the petition must be taken into consideration for determining whether a case is made out for holding that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, and we agree with the High Court that no such case is made out.
