RAJINDRA KARAMSINGH WALIA vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. PATEL SYNTHETICS YARN PVT. LTD.

2008:BHC-OS:4559
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.483 OF 2005
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.560 OF 1998
WITH
O.L.R.
Rajindra Karamsingh Walia             Applicant
Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Patel
Synthetics                Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.748 of 2007
Rajindra Karamsingh Walia             Applicant
Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Megaware
Computers                 Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.993 OF 2006
CD Security Services Network Ltd.   Applicant
    Versus
M/s.Mohan Carpets (India) Ltd. And anr.       Respondents
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.861 OF 2007
Rajindra Karamsingh Walia  Applicant
     Versus
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

2
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Ajit
Glass Works Pvt.Ltd.      Respondents
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2007
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.382 OF 1996
Rajindra Karamsingh Walia             Applicant
Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Industrial and
Research Institute Pvt.Ltd.         Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1007 OF 2007
Guruda Keepers (India) Pvt.Ltd.  Applicant
     Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Snehi
Good Home         Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1009 OF 2007
Guruda Keepers India Pvt.Ltd. Applicant
         Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Pharma Rinni         Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.614 OF 2007
C.D.Security Services Network Ltd. Applicant
           Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Rajesh Dyeing       Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

3
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.615 OF 2007
C.D.Security Services Network Ltd. Applicant
(In Liquidation)
           Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Enari Finance               Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.512 OF 2007
M/s.C.D.Security Services Network Ltd. Applicant
     Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Nisarga Forest     Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2008
Guruda Keepers India Pvt.Ltd. and anr.         Applicant
     Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.Fabwell Auto­
Motive.     Respondent
AND
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2008
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.1125 OF 2001
Guruda Keepers India Pvt.Ltd.        Applicant
Versus
The Official Liquidator of M/s.HES Ltd.    Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

4
APPEARANCE :­
In Company Application Nos.483/2005, 738/2007, 748/2007, 861/2007,
1007/2007, 1009/2007, 100/2008, 101/2008 :
Mr.C.N.Mehta for applicants.
Mr.Vishwajit P. Sawant for Official Liquidator.
Mr.S.Ramakanta, Deputy Official Liquidator present.
In Company Application No.993 of 2006 :
Mrs.Shakuntala Joshi for applicant.
Mr.Vishwajit P. Sawant for Official Liquidator.
Mr.S.Ramakanta, Deputy Official Liquidator present.
In Company Application Nos.512/2007, 614/2007, 615/2007 :
Mrs.Molina P. Thakur for applicants.
Mr.Vishwajit P. Sawant for Liquidator.
Mr.S.Ramakanta, Deputy Official Liquidator present.
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
th
DATE    :  05  March 2008.
ORAL JUDGEMENT :­
1. All these applications shall stand disposed off by this common
order, as the issues raised are over­lapping.  In all fourteen applications
were   listed   before   me   claiming   similar   relief   against   the   Official
Liquidator.  Out of the said fourteen applications, two applications, being
Company Application Nos.645 of 2007 and 1008 of 2007, have been
rd th
disposed off by separate orders passed on 3   March 2008 and 5
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

5
March 2008 respectively as not pressed.   In other words, the present
common order will dispose off remaining twelve applications on board.
2. In each of these twelve applications, the applicant asserts that the
applicant security agency was appointed under the instructions of the
Official   Liquidator­to   provide   security   arrangement   in   respect   of
immovable and movable assets of the concerned company in liquidation
or in relation to those companies wherefor the Official Liquidator was
appointed   as   Provisional   Liquidator.     According   to   each   of   these
applicants they have provided security arrangement for sufficiently long
time, which was duly approved by the Official Liquidator and also ratified
by the Company Court.   However, the charges payable for the said
services have either remained unpaid in full or only paltry payment has
been made; as a result, substantial amount is unpaid and is outstanding,
payable   by   the   Official   Liquidator.     The   applicants   have,   therefore,
approached   the   Company   Court   for   a   direction   against   the   Official
Liquidator to disburse the outstanding dues payable to them.  
3. The principal reason cited for non payment of the dues is on
account   of   unavailability   of   funds   in   the   account   of   the   concerned
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

6
company for whom the security services have been provided by the
applicant.   According to the applicants, merely because no funds are
available for disbursal or payment of security charges, that cannot be a
legitimate ground to delay the payment especially when the  Official
Liquidator has requisitioned the security services and in fact has availed
the same.  On the other hand, the applicants were obliged to pay the
wages and salaries of the security personnel employed by them for
providing such security services to preserve the properties in question.
According to the applicants, the Official Liquidator is obliged to pay the
security   charges   on   month   to   month   basis   or   periodically   to   the
applicants   for   the   services   rendered   in   that   behalf.     One   of   the
suggestion made by the applicants is that the Official Liquidator can
release their payment from and out of the Common Fund available with
the Official Liquidator.
4. As the issue raised in the present set of applications was over­
lapping   and   recurring   one,   I   thought   it   appropriate   to   hear   all   the
applications together so as to understand the gravity of the over all
situation in the office of the Official Liquidator.  In terms of orders passed
from time to time, the Official Liquidator was called upon to furnish
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

7
requisite information.  That information has now been compiled by the
th
Official Liquidator and placed on record along with his affidavit dated 26
February 2008.  
5. It is seen that the Official Liquidator has framed a panel of security
th
agencies.     Until   20   January   2003,     six   security   agencies   were
empanelled ­whose services were availed from time  to  time by the
Official Liquidator for different assignments.  The panel was expanded
th
on 20  January 2003 by including 15 additional security agencies, and
th
by subsequent report dated 28   January 2007 further three security
agencies have been empanelled.  In other words, as of now, in all 24
security agencies are empanelled, whose services are availed by the
Official Liquidator from time to time for different assignments.   It is also
noticed that besides the applications filed before this Court, there are
around 90 other applications pending before the Official Liquidator for
similar relief preferred by different security agencies.  Significantly, from
the tabular chart which has been placed on record, it appears that to
provide security arrangement in respect of 104 different assignments,
the Official Liquidator has utilised   the services of only ten security
agencies.   Out of the said ten agencies, Reliable Industrial Services,
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

8
C.D.   Securities   Network   Limited,   Garuda   Keepers   (I)   Pvt.Ltd.   and
Bhagwati Allied Services are concerned, they have been engaged in 20
or more assignments respectively,   unlike other six security agencies
who have been engaged in far lesser number of assignments.  In that,
Crack Detectives Pvt.Ltd. is engaged in respect of eight assignments;
whereas Sadguru Security and Consultancy Services in five; Mahalaxmi
Security Services in three, Guardian Facilities Management (Nagpur)
Pvt.Ltd. in two; Industrial Security and Fire Services Bombay Pvt.Ltd. in
one   and   Seven   Star   Security   Services   India   Pvt.Ltd.   in   one.     To
ascertain as to whether the security agencies are controlled by common
persons   in   different   names,   during   the   course   of   hearing,   counsel
appearing   for   the   parties   were   called   upon   to   furnish   information
regarding the names of Directors/Proprietors/Partners of the respective
security  agencies.    Pursuant  thereto following   information   has  been
placed on record :­

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

9

5. From the tabular chart made available to the Court which is placed
on record, it is also noticed that the outstanding dues claimed in the
present   set   of   applications   is   in   the   aggregate   amount   of
Rs.2,60,05,090/­; and similar claim pending before the Official Liquidator
in relation to other assignments in 90 applications, is to the extent of
Rs.9,53,91,499/­.  In other words, the aggregate amount payable by the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

10
Official   Liquidator   to   ten   different   security   agencies   is   almost   over
Rs.12.50 crores.  
6. Notably, four security agencies have been engaged, in around 80
assignments out of 104 assignments by the Official Liquidator.  The total
outstanding amount receivable by those four agencies would far exceed
over Rs.11.00 crores.  
7. Naturally, the question is why should these agencies suffer such
hegemony of the Official Liquidator who was not paying the colossal
amount     for   the   period   ranging   from   “1995”   onwards,   as   can   be
discerned from the chart compiled by the Official Liquidator placed on
record.     At   the   outset,   I   would   think   it   appropriate   to   append   the
information furnished by the Official Liquidator in tabular chart to this
order, which be treated as part and parcel hereof.   I have chosen to
annex the said chart to the order for two reasons.  Firstly, to make it as
part of this order as the same is self eloquent and at the same time not
to increase the length of this order.   At the cost of repetition I may
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

11
observe that the bare  perusal of the said chart would highlight the
gravity of the matter under consideration.  The said chart is marked “X”.
8. As aforesaid, the facts disclosed in the abovesaid compiled chart
furnished by the Official Liquidator, are so telling and self eloquent that
no elaboration thereof is necessary.   From those facts the inevitable
conclusion is that there is amiss in the office of the Official Liquidator
either on account of act of commission or omission with purpose or
otherwise.  Whether it is a case of laxity of theofficials in the office of
Official Liquidator or collusion by some of the officials to benefit selected
security agencies, is not only  a  matter of serious concern but also
requires deeper enquiry at the appropriate level.  
9. Indubitably,   the   Official   Liquidator   is   appointed   to   protect   and
preserve the properties of the company in liquidation for the benefit of
the stake holders in that company.  The role discharged by the Official
Liquidator is similar to one of  parens patriae  and in any case that of a
trustee appointed under the orders of the Court for and on behalf of the
stake holders in the concerned company.  The provisions of Companies
Act abundantly make it clear about the role and duty of the Official
Liquidator, which he is expected to discharge, after being appointed by
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

12
the Court in respect of the property of company in liquidation.  Indeed,
while   discharging   that   role,   the   Official     Liquidator   has   to   avail   of
logistical   support   from   different   agencies,   such   as,   Chartered
Accountant, Valuers and in particular security agencies­to preserve and
protect the assets of the company and to dispose off the same by
realising its fair value for being distributed amongst the stake holders in
the   company   in   liquidation   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of
Companies Act.   The Official Liquidator is obliged to dispose off the
assets of the company in liquidation at the earliest opportunity so that
the same are not wasted in any manner and would realize best price to
be disbursed amongst the stake holders in the company in liquidation.
Indeed, in a given case, the Official Liquidator may be handicapped on
account of some other legal proceedings pending and/or stay orders
passed   by   Court   of   competent   jurisdiction   or   the   superior   Court.
However, if no such impediment operates, there can be no tangible
reason to justify the inaction on the part of the Official Liquidator in not
disposing all the assets of the company in liquidation in right earnest
and expeditiously.  As long as the assets, movable or immovable as the
case may be, are not disposed off, naturally, for preserving the same,
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

13
the  Official  Liquidator  is  required  to  depend  on  the  services  of  the
security agency, which services are availed for consideration.  Suffice it
to observe that the delay in disposal of the assets of the company in
liquidation would necessarily result in causing loss to the stake holders
in the company in liquidation, and at the same time result in distributing
largesse   to   the   security   agencies   for   prolonged   period,   avoidable
though.  
10. Thus understood, and keeping in mind the facts and figures now
revealed in the tabular chart furnished by the Official Liquidator, it would
inevitably   raise   serious   doubt   about   some   unholy   nexus   with   the
operating security agencies engaged by the Official Liquidator.   The
suspicion is strengthened as it is incomprehensible that those agencies
mutely   continued   to   offer   their   services   without   receiving   any
consideration “for several years”.  The fact that the concerned agencies
may have pursued the matter with the Official Liquidator for payment,
does not take the matter any further.   I do not think it necessary to
elaborate on these aspects in detail as those are matters to be enquired
into by the competent authority.  My endeavour is to only highlight the
gravity of the situation with a hope that some remedial and corrective
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

14
action would be taken by the appropriate authority.  The issues that may
have to be considered during such enquiry, amongst others, ought to
be:­
I. Whether the number of security personnel deployed in the respective
assignments was appropriate, having regard to the nature of assets
(movable and immovable)? (It has been noticed  in some cases that
even in respect of insignificant assets of the company in liquidation,
the number of security personnel engaged by the concerned security
agency­purportedly   under   instructions   of   the   Official   Liquidator,
appear to be disproportionately large.)
II. Whether there was any justification for not expediting the process of
sale of assets in question of the concerned company?
III.Whether the assets which were available for sale, on account of long
passage of time, have been siphoned off?  This issue would arise in
some of the cases where the creditors or other stake holders have
alleged theft or siphoning away of the assets in spite of security
arrangement provided by the Official Liquidator.
IV.Whether there is dispute about the fact that although the security
agency has claimed charges for having deployed particular number of
security personnel on the site, but in fact none or less number of
security personnel were found patrolling the site. (Such grievance has
been made in some of the cases by the stake holders in the company
in liquidation)?
11. All such issues and other related matters may have bearing on
ascertaining   as   to   whether   it   is   a   case   of   act   of   commission   and
omission   of   any   official(s)   in   the   office   of   the   Official   Liquidator   in
connivance with the concerned security agency.  If it is so, it would be
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

15
imperative to identify such officials (of the Official Liquidator) dealing
with the respective cases and to suitably proceed against them by way
of   departmental   action   including   to   recover   the   amount   of   loss   or
damage and for criminal action, if necessary.  Indeed, if it is a case of
criminal conspiracy, then all  concerned  including  the managers  and
authorised officers of the security agencies, should also be proceeded
with.
12. Be   that   as   it   may,   from   the   materials   on   record,   I   have   no
hesitation in taking the view that the relief claimed by the applicants is
not innocuous and innocent. There is much more than what meets the
eyes.  Nevertheless, I will have to consider the claim of the applicants.
13. The question is whether the claim of the security agency will have
to be accepted as it is or placed under the scanner in the context of the
consistent   trend   emerging   from   the   record   about   the   act   of
commission and omission of the Official Liquidator in not ensuring that
only proper number security guards are deployed on the site where the
security agency has been appointed; and that no plausible explanation
is forthcoming for not expediting the sale of the assets of the company
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

16
for   unduly   long   time   resulting   in   continued   deployment   of   security
services.  All these aspects will have to be considered by the Competent
Authority.     Nevertheless,   I   shall   revert   to   the   claims   of   individual
applicant.
14. Re. :  Company  Application No.748 of 2007  :­
a) Insofar as Company Application No.748 of 2007 is concerned, the
same pertains to M/s.Reliable Industrial Services appointed as security
agency to preserve the assets of M/s.Megaware Computers Limited (in
Liquidation).     Admittedly,   winding­up   order   in   respect   of   the   said
th
company was passed on 17   July 1998.   The Official Liquidator took
over the possession of the assets and properties of the said company
th
on 07   December 1998.   At  the time  of   taking possession of the
properties,   an   inventory   was   drawn,   which   gives   description   of   the
movable properties lying in the disputed premises in four different rooms
as follows :­

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

17

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

18

b) The   Official   Liquidator   claims   to   have   taken   possession   of
premises at Plot No.38/C, Piparia Industrial Estate, Amli Village,  Silvasa
purportedly   owned   and   possessed   by   the   company   in   liquidation
admeasuring 800 square meters.   The fact that the company was in
possession of 800 sq.mtrs. of the said premises is debatable.  This is so
because the  owner of the  property  M/s.Indra Optical Company  has
appeared before this Court and has filed Company Application No.1040
of 2007 wherein it is asserted that the said firm is the owner of the
immovable   property   and   had   put   the   company   in   liquidation   in
possession only to the extent of four rooms admeasuring 400 sq.mtrs..
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

19
c) It is also matter of record that after taking over possession of said
immovable and movable properties of the company in liquidation, the
Official Liquidator proceeded to appoint the applicant security agency to
guard the property.  Indeed, the Official Liquidator has taken approval
of the Company Court for appointment of three guards per shift and
two   supervisors   in   all   three   shifts.     The   question   is   whether   the
recommendation to appoint such large number of security guards in
relation to the property of the company in liquidation as referred to
above was warranted?  I will advert to this aspect a little latter.
d) It is not in dispute that the movable properties referred to in the
inventory belonging to the company in liquidation have been sold in
December 2003.  Thereafter the strength of security guards deployed at
the site has been reduced  to only one security guard per shift.  Insofar
as arrangement provided after December 2003 is concerned, there can
be no difficulty in accepting the claim of the applicant in that behalf.  
e) The question is, whether it was appropriate to permit deployment
of three security guards per shift and additionally two supervisors for all
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

20
the three shifts for the earlier period, having regard to the nature of
property which was required to be protected.   Significantly, when the
movables were disposed off in December 2003, the value realised by
the Official Liquidator is stated to be only Rs.55,000/­.  The claim of the
applicant   towards   security   charges   far   exceeds   the   value   of   the
movables.   i.e.   Above   Rs.16   lakhs.   For   protecting   goods   of   such
insignificant value, no prudent person would venture to engage security
agency to the extent of three guards per shift and two supervisors for all
the three shifts.  That is incomprenensible.  Notably, such heavy security
arrangement   was   continued   for   almost   five   years   from   1998   till
December   2003.     I   have   no   hesitation   in   taking   the   view   that   the
dispensation provided for protecting the movable and immovable assets
of the company in liquidation was far excessive and unwarranted.  As a
matter of fact, the deployment of one security guard per shift would have
been more than sufficient in the fact situation of this case.  That is so
because, the nature of movable items were such that all the items could
have   been   arranged   in   one   room   to   be   kept   under   lock   and   key.
Indisputably, the property in question is situated in a well developed and
busy industrial estate.  It is not as if the property was situated in remote
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

21
part for which heavy security of the kind was necessary.  
f) The   argument   of   the   applicant   that   the   applicant   cannot   be
blamed   for   having   deployed   such   heavy   security­as   that   was   the
requirement   specified   by   the   Official   Liquidator   himself,   does   not
commend to me.  As observed earlier in this order, the over all situation
in the office of the Official Liquidator during the relevant period itself is
under scanner.   The fact that no valuation of assets was done by the
Official Liquidator at the relevant time or that the Official Liquidator in the
reply filed to this application admitted the liability to pay the amount,
does not preclude the Company Court to enquire into the specific issue
in the context of the over all situation prevailing in the office of the
Official Liquidator during the relevant period which has been unravelled
now. In my opinion, until proper enquiry is conducted and the larger
th
questions   enquired,   the   security   charges   from   07   December   1998
onwards at best can be disbursed to the applicant on the assumption
that the agency had deployed only one security guard per shift on the
site.     The   Official   Liquidator   shall   then   adjudicate   the   claim   of   the
applicant on the basis of the observations made herein to determine the
amount payable to the applicant in respect of the subject matter in this
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

22
application.     That   amount   will   be   obviously   payable   from   the   sale
proceeds of the   immovable property of the company in liquidation, if
any.  In the event the company in liquidation has no funds,  the Court
may have to issue directions to the Secured Creditors  to take over the
liability   for     having   provided   the   security   to   protect   the   property  in
question.  At any rate, it is not possible to direct the Official Liquidator to
pay the amount from the consolidated fund, which is the one of the
request made on behalf of the applicant.  
g) It is made clear that I am not expressing any opinion in respect of
the   claim   of   the   M/s.Indra   Optical   Company   who   has   taken   out
Company Application No.1040 of 2007 for relief of possession of the
self­same immovable property, which application will have to be decided
on its own merits in accordance with law.  
15. Re. : Company Application No.738 of 2007  :­
a) Insofar   as   the   claim   of   the   applicant   in   Company   Application
No.738   of   2007,   the   winding­up   order   in   respect   of     respondent
rd
company was passed on 23  November 1998.  The Official Liquidator
took   possession   of   the   assets   and   properties   of   the   respondent
th
company (in liquidation) on 28  April 1999.  The Official Liquidator took
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

23
possession of the immovable property situated at Phool Baug, I.P.Patel
Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063 which is approximately 817
square yards.     The  movable  assets have been  inventorised  by the
Official Liquidator in the report which reads thus:­

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

24

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

25

The   immovable   property   was   handed   back   to   the   owner   after   the
th
movable assets were sold on 04  June 2003.  The sale proceeds from
the movable assets is only a sum of Rs.3,02,000/­, whereas the claim of
the   applicant   towards   security   charges   is   in   the   aggregate   sum   of
Rs.12,18,938=67 Ps..
b) The applicant claims to have appointed three security guards per
shift and one supervisor round the clock.  Indeed, the Official Liquidator
has taken approval of the Company Court for deploying three guards
per shift and one supervisors for all the three shifts.   The question is
whether   the   recommendation   of   appointment   of   heavy     security   in
relation to the property of the company in liquidation as referred to
above was warranted?  I will advert to this aspect a little latter.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

26
c) It is not in dispute that the movable properties referred to in the
th
inventory belonging to the company in liquidation have been sold on 4
June 2003.   The question is whether it was necessary for the Official
Liquidator to permit deployment of three security guards per shift and
one supervisor for  all the three shifts for the nature of property which
was required to be protected.   Significantly, when the movables were
disposed off in June 2003, the value realised by the Official Liquidator is
stated to be only Rs.3,02,000/­.   No prudent person would venture to
engage security agency to the extent of three guards per shift and one
supervisor   for   all   the   three   shifts   to   preserve   movables   of   such
insignificant value.   That is incomprenensible.   I have no hesitation in
taking   the   view   that   the   dispensation   provided   for   protecting   the
movable   and   immovable   assets   of   the   company   in   liquidation   was
excessive and unwarranted.  As a matter of fact, the deployment of one
security guard per shift would have been more than sufficient in the fact
situation of this case.  That is so because, the movable items were such
that it could have been arranged at one place to be kept under lock and
key.  Moreover, the property in question is situated in a well developed
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

27
and busy industrial estate.   It is not as if the property was situated in
remote part for which heavy security of the kind was necessary.  
d) Even in this case, the argument of the applicant that the applicant
cannot be blamed for having provided such security as that was the
requirement   specified   by   the   Official   Liquidator   himself,   does   not
commend to me.  As observed in the earlier part of the order,  taking
the   totality   of   the   situation   prevailing   in   the   office   of   the   Official
Liquidator during the relevant period, it was totally amiss.  The fact that
no   valuation   of   assets   was   done   by   the   Official   Liquidator   at   the
relevant time or that the Official Liquidator in the reply filed to this
application admitted the liability to pay the amount, does not preclude
the Company Judge to enquire into the specific issue in the backdrop of
the larger issue regarding the questionable conduct of the Officials at
the relevant time.  In my opinion, until proper enquiry is conducted and
rd
larger   issues   enquired,   security   charges   from   23   November   1998
onwards may be disbursed to the applicant on the assumption that the
agency had deployed only one security guard per shift on the site.  The
Official Liquidator shall then  adjudicate the claim of the applicant on the
basis of the observations made herein.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

28
e) Significantly, the applicant has already received Rs.3,18,010/­ by
now towards outstanding bills.  After giving adjustment of that amount,
the Official Liquidator may take steps to pay the balance on the above
basis, if any, to the applicant by recovering the same from the secured
nd
creditors in terms of order dated 22   June 2001 in the event of any
shortfall.  The secured creditors will be free to contest the said demand,
nd
if that is open to them in spite of order dated 22   June 2001.   The
Official Liquidator while considering the claim of the applicant in terms
of this order shall give opportunity to the secured creditor to establish
the position that during the relevant period in fact no security guards
were deployed on the site. That aspect will be considered on its own
merits.  In the event the case made out by the creditors is established,
it would necessarily follow that the applicant will not be entitled to any
payment during such period.   In that case, the Official Liquidator will
have to pass consequential order for recovery of commensurate amount
from the applicant, if any.
16. Re. : Company Application No.861 of 2007  :­
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

29
a) The company in liquidation was ordered to be wound­up in terms
th
of order dated 25   November 1998.  The Official Liquidator took over
possession of the immovable and movable assets of the company in
th
liquidation on 15  June 1999.  It is also seen that the applicant security
agency   was   appointed   to   safeguard   the   assets   of   the   company   in
liquidation which were taken over by the Official Liquidator on the same
th
day i.e. On 15  June 1999.  The immovable property is a freehold land
being a Plot admeasuring 5257.81 sq.mts. in village Oshiwara, South
Salsette   bearing   CTS   Nos.14,   H.No.6(P)   and   H.No.7(P),   located   at
about   1.5   to   2.00   kms.   from   Jogeshwari   Railway   Station,   which   is
abutting the 80 ft. S.V.Road, which is a busy road.  In other words, the
immovable property of the company in liquidation is located in a prime
locality of Jogeshwari, Mumbai.  It is seen that while taking possession
of the immovable and movable assets, the Official Liquidator did not
prepare   contemporaneous   inventory.     However,   the   inventory   of
immovable   as   well   as   movable   assets   was   drawn   at   the   time   of
valuation of the assets of the company in liquidation, some time in
February   2003.     The   description   of   the   movable   assets   has   been
specified in the valuation report, which reads thus :­
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

30

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

31

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

32

b) The   valuation   report   in   respect   of   immovable   property   clearly
mentions that the plot is bounded by compound wall viz. R.R.Masonary
of 7' ht. On front side and B.M.Wall of 4' ht on other sides.  There is
asphalt   road   within   the   compound.     Suffice   it   to   observe   that   the
property   of   the   company   in   liquidation   was   well   safeguarded   and
enclosed.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

33
c) Be   that   as   it   may,   applicant   security   agency   claims   to   have
deployed seven security guards for first shift and second shift and eight
security guards in the  night  shift  (i.e. Twenty two  guards)  and one
supervisor in each shift (i.e. three supervisors) to protect the assets of
the company in liquidation.  Significantly, afer the process of valuation
was completed and report received, the movable assets of the company
th
in liquidation were sold on 27  August 2003, only for a sum of  Rs.16.50
th
lakhs.  Whereas, the applicant claims security charges from 15  June
1999 till December 2007 in the sum of around Rs.64.00 lakhs. Out of the
said   demand,   the   Official   Liquidator   has   already   paid   a   sum   of
Rs.16,50,843/­ to the applicant. Thereby the balance amount payable to
the   applicant   is   Rs.46,58,297=46   Ps.       As   aforesaid,   the   Official
Liquidator could sell the movable assets of the company in liquidation
only for Rs.16.50 lakh and the sale proceeds so received have been
made over to the applicant towards part payment.   There is no other
amount lying with the Official Liquidator.   The fund in relation to the
company   in   liquidation   available   with   the   Official   Liquidator   is   only
Rs.21,858/­.   As a result, the Official Liquidator is unable to pay the
balance amount claimed by the applicant.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

34
d) As in other cases, the question that needs to be addressed in this
application is whether it was essential to provide such heavy security to
protect the stated movable and immovable assets of the company in
liquidation.  From the valuation report as referred to above, it is obvious
that the movables were lying in enclosed structure and not exposed to
outsiders as such.   Besides, it is seen that the entire property was
bounded by compound wall.   As a result, access to the property was
obviously not  so easy. To protect such property, even if it was spread
out to the extent of about four acres, having regard to the location of the
property and the surrounding circumstances, obviously it cannot be said
that it was imperative to deploy   seven security guards for first and
second   shifts   and   eight   security   guards   in   the   night   shift   with   one
supervisor in each shift.  As aforesaid, the value of movables that are
sold   could   fetch   only   Rs.16.50   lakhs   whereas   the   security   charges
claimed by the applicant is to the extent of Rs.63.00 lakhs and above up
th
to December 2007 since the date of appointment on 15  June 1999.  In
my opinion, the Official Liquidator will have to adjudicate the claim of the
applicant agency afresh keeping in mind all the attending circumstances
and the larger questions referred to hereto. 
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

35
e) There is yet another aspect which in my opinion is significant for
considering the claim of the applicant.  Indisputably, the movable assets
th
were sold on 27   August 2003 and the same were delivered to the
purchaser in April 2004.   On and from April 2004 what was required
to be protected was only immovable property, which was well protected
by   compound   wall.     For   such   type   of   property,   by   no   stretch   of
imagination,   any   prudent   person   would   employ   services   of   seven
security guards or eight guards with one supervisor for each shift. In
other words, there can be no justification for paying the charges to the
applicant   since   April   2004   on   the   same   basis   as   was   required   to
preserve   the   movable   assets   along   with   immovable   assets   of   the
company in liquidation during the anterior period.  
f) To get over this position the argument of the petitioner, is that, it
is the Official Liquidator who insisted for deploying seven guards and it
was not the choice of the applicant as such.   It is submitted that the
Official Liquidator never instructed the applicant to reduce the security
strength.     Besides,   to   justify   the   necessity   of   continuing   the   same
security   arrangement   of   atleast   seven   guards   per   shift   with   one
supervisor, the counsel for the applicant pressed into service Official
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

36
Liquidator's report which refers to the letter sent by the applicant dated
th
29   September 2001 placing on record the need for engagement of
security on the Eastern side.  None of these arguments commend me.
For, in the earlier part of this order I have already adverted to the
pattern which flows from each assignment.  The inescapable conclusion
is, it is an act of commission and omission of the officials in the office of
the Official Liquidator with purpose, completely disregarding the interest
of the stakeholders of the company in liquidation for whom the Official
Liquidator was expected to act as Custodia Legis.  Suffice it to observe
that the claim of the applicant cannot be straight way accepted merely
because of the communication from the Official Liquidator to arrange for
seven guards for the first and second shifts and eight guards in night
shift with one supervisor for each shift.  Instead, all the aspects will have
to be considered by the Official Liquidator while readjudicating the claim
of the applicant.  While doing so,  the Official Liquidator shall permit the
other stakeholders to participate in the proceedings who would be free
to place on record the irregularities committed by the security agency as
is alleged by them, amongst others, by the Workers Union, in their letter
nd
dated   2   February   2008.     Besides   the   workers   union,   the   Official
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

37
Liquidator  will   also   permit   the   secured   creditors   of   the   company  in
liquidation as also the ex­director to take a stand as to the justification
and   necessity   of   the   arrangement   provided   by   the   applicant   as   is
claimed by the applicant. 
17. Re. : Company Application No.483 of 2005  :­
th
a) The winding­up order was passed on 10  April 2007.  However,
th
much earlier to that, by order dated 18   July 1998, the Provisional
Liquidator   was   appointed   to   take   over   possession   of   assets   and
properties   of   the   company   in   liquidation.     The   Official   Liquidator
accordingly took over possession of the immovable and movable assets
th
of the company in liquidation on 24  August 1998.  On the same day,
the Official Liquidator appointed the applicant as security agency to
safeguard  the   assets   of   the   company   in   liquidation.     The   applicant
deployed   three   security   guards   per   shift   (i.e.   Nine   per   day).     The
inventory   report   discloses   the   nature   of   movable   properties   of   the
company in liquidation which reads thus :­
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

38

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

39

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

40

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

41

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

42

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

43

b) Insofar as immovable assets of the company in liquidation are
concerned, the same is a Plot bearing No.A­2/1204, Panoli Industrial
Area,   GIDC,   Ankleshwar,   Gujarat   State   admeasuring   about   1920
sq.mtrs..  The said plot is located near Mumbai­Ankleshwar Highway at
a   distance   of   8   kms.   from   Ankleshwar   where   small   and   medium
industries are located.   The material on record also indicates that all
amenities like electricity, road, water etc. were available and access to
the  industrial   area   was   found  to   be  easy.    Be  that   as   it   may,  the
movable assets of the company in liquidation were eventually sold only
th
on 14  February 2008.  Obviously, therefore, the security arrangement
was   required   to   be   continued   for   all   these   years   from   1998.
Significantly,   the   number   of   security   guards   were   reduced   by   the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

44
applicant to only three guards i.e. one guard per shift with effect from
st
01  October 2005.  Indeed, one of the consideration for doing so was
non payment of the bills raised from time to time.  The fact remains that
since October 2005 the applicant has been able to protect both, the
movable as well as immovable assets of the company in liquidation by
providing   only   one   guard   per   shift   basis.     No   tangible   reason   is
forthcoming as to why the applicant insisted for providing three security
guards per shift (i.e. Nine guards per day) for the same property.  Thus
understood, the claim of the applicant for charges of three security
guards per shift basis is unacceptable.  Significantly, the movable assets
th
which have been sold on 14  February 2008 have fetched only Rs.14.50
lakhs, as against   the outstanding claim of the applicant which has
th
mounted to Rs.28.00 lakh and odd w.e.f. 24  August 1998.
c) The justification given by the counsel for the applicant is that nine
security   guards   were   deployed   on   the   insistence   of   the   Official
Liquidator.     Besides,   the   plot   in   question   was   not   provided   with
boundary wall.   Both these submissions will have to be stated to be
rejected.  Insofar as the argument of non existence of boundary wall is
concerned, if the applicant could manage the situation with one security
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

45
guard per shift since October 2005 till recently, there is no reason to
accept the plea that higher number of security guards were required to
be deployed  at  the  site for  the  earlier  period, which was obviously
avoidable.  
d) In the circumstances, until the larger issues are inquired into, the
Official Liquidator may pay the applicant on the assumption that the
applicant had deployed only one security guard per shift basis with
th
effect from 24   August 1998.   The Official Liquidator may be free to
disburse the amount available in account of the company in liquidation
out of the sale proceeds as and when available to the Official Liquidator.
18.  :­
Re. : Company Application No.993 of 2006
a) Insofar as Company Application No.993 of 2006 is concerned, the
same  pertains   to   security   charges   offered   in   relation   to   M/s.Mohan
Carpets (I) Limited (Company in Liquidation).  The said company was
th
ordered to be wound up on 17  November 1998.  Conseqent thereto,
the Official Liquidator took possession of the immovable and movable
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

46
assets of the company in liquidation.   It appears that the immovable
assets  is  a  plot   bearing   No.39,   Sector­II,   Kandla   Special  Economic
Zone, Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat), admeasuring about 4,070 square
metres or thereabout.   Insofar as the movable assets are concerned,
which consist of plant and machinery, stock, finished goods etc. lying on
the   said   plot,   have   been   valued   to   the   extent   of   Rs.3.85   crores.
Obviously, having regard to the substantial value of the movable assets
of the company taken over by the Official Liquidator, the security agency
was called upon to provide three security guards per shift (nine guards
per   day)   with   one   supervisor.   The   applicant   security   agency   was
st
appointed on 1  November 2001 to protect the movable and immovable
assets of the company in liquidation.  The applicant security agency has
offered services since then,  however, no amount has been paid to the
said agency.  The outstanding amount is stated to be Rs.20,63,615=85
Ps..
b)  The counsel for the applicant would contend that by virtue of Section
457(2A) of the Companies Act, it is the duty of the Official Liquidator to
appoint security guards to protect the property of the company whereof
custody is taken and to record an inventory of the assets in consultation
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

47
with   secured   creditors   after   giving   them   notice;   appoint   valuer,
chartered surveyors or chartered accountant, as the case may be, to
assess the value of the company's assets within specified time and to
take steps to invite bids for sale of the assets of the company within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of valuation report.  Relying on this
provision it was argued that the security agency cannot be blamed for
having   engaged   excess   number   of   security   guards   to   protect   the
property in question.  According to the applicant, it is the prerogative of
the Official Liquidator to suggest the number of security guards to be
engaged to protect the property in question and the security agency is
only required to abide by such directions.  The Official Liquidator may
indicate the number of security guards to be deployed in consultation
with the secured creditors including the security agency itself,  having
regard to the exigencies to be provided for protecting the property of the
company in liquidation. It is argued that the appointment of security
agency is ratified by the Court and once that has been done, there is no
reason to reopen the issue of appropriate number of security guards to
be deployed by the security agency.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

48
c) It is then argued that the fact that the security agency continued
to provide the security arrangement without receiving any amount from
the Official Liquidator towards their contractual entitlement, that cannot
be held against the security agency.   It is argued that the security
agency   has   no   option   but   to   continue   to   provide   the   security   until
contrary instructions are issued either by the Official Liquidator or order
to be passed by the Company Court in that behalf.  It is lastly contended
that having regard to the over all situation, as is evident from the figures
now made available by the Official Liquidator, it is appropriate to make a
provision that  the security agency would be free to  discontinue the
security arrangement for want of payment after giving sufficient notice to
the Official Liquidator in that behalf.   On the above arguments, it was
contended that the relief as claimed in the present application ought to
be granted.
d) There can be no doubt that it is the primary responsibility of the
Official Liquidator to appoint security guards as soon as possession of
the assets of the company in liquidation is taken over by the Official
Liquidator, in terms of Section 457(2A) of the Act.  There can also be
no doubt  that  once   the    dispensation  recommended  by  the  Official
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

49
Liquidator is ratified by the Court, no further enquiry into that matter
would be necessary.   However, that course is necessitated in cases
dealt with in this order as it is noticed that although the movable assets
were of insignificant value, the security arrangement provided was far
excessive   and   unwarranted.   That   arrangement   was,   per   se,   not
commensurate with the value of the movable assets involved.  In fact,
the security charges have far exceeded the value of the movable assets
received by way of sale proceeds, as is demonstrated in the chart which
forms   part   of   this   order.     Moreover,   it   cannot   be   overlooked   that
ordinarily the Company Court approves the recommendation made by
the   Official   Liquidator,   unless   at   the   relevant   time   an   objection   is
registered from any quarter.  If it is a case of connivance of the officials
in   the   office   of   the   Official   Liquidator,   the   fact   that   the   Court   has
alreadyoved the arrangement, will make no difference as it will be a
case of fraud played upon the Court.  That is a matter which needs to be
examined by the appropriate authority keeping in mind observations
made in this decision.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

50
e) Insofar   as   present   applicant   is   concerned,   the   claim   of   the
applicant that deployment of three guards per shift was essential, will
have to be accepted for the simple reason that the value of the movable
assets has been notified as Rs.3.85 crores.  To preserve such valuable
property,   there   can   be   no   difficulty   in   accepting   the   arrangement
already made by the Official Liquidator to be reasonable and necessary
in the fact situation of this application.  That, however, is not the position
in every other case before me to which I have already adverted to at the
appropriate place.
f) The argument of the applicant that the security agency has no
option but to continue to provide security arrangement irrespective of not
receiving any payment from the Official Liquidator, however, does not
commend to me.  There is no reason for the security agency to wait for
several years and then come and assert their right before the Official
Liquidator in the first place and then before the Company Court to
release their outstanding dues.   From the figures which are available
from   the   record   it   is   noticed   that   insofar   as   M/s.Reliable   Industrial
Services is concerned, it has waited to receive a sum exceeding Rs.2.00
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

51
crores in relation to about 23 assignments only.  Obviously, the amount
has been allowed to mount in some cases from 1998 onwards, as can
be discerned from the chart made available to the Court.  Same pattern
emerges   in   respect   of   other   security   agencies.     Insofar   as
M/s.C.D.Security Services Network Limited is concerned, it has allowed
the security charges to mount up to Rs.2.50   crores in relation to 22
assignments   only;   whereas,   M/s.Guruda   Keepers   (I)   Pvt.Ltd.   have
allowed   the   outstanding   security   dues   to   mount   exceeding   Rs.3.00
crores.   Similarly   M/s.Bhagwati Allied Services allowed  the service
charges to mount over Rs.4.50 crores in relation to 21 assignments
only.
g) Indeed,   this   amount   has   not   piled   up   in   one   year's   time   as
outstanding dues, but allowed to get accumulated   for several years
without receiving any amount at all or part payment in respect of some
assignment.     It   is   inconceivable   that   the   security   agencies   would
continue   to   provide   efficient   and   effective   services   by   deploying
adequate number of guards for all these years without receiving any
payment at all.  This does not stand to commercial wisdom of a  prudent
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

52
businessman.   It is not necessary for me to burden this order with this
aspect any further, except to observe, as has been found in the earlier
part of this order that, if the totality of the situation prevailing in the office
of the Official Liquidator is to be analysed, it gives an impression that all
this was happening in connivance with the security agencies and the
officials   of   the   Official   Liquidator.     Those   aspects   will   have   to   be
addressed   independently   and   taken   to   its   logical   end   for   which
necessary directions are being issued in this order.
h) Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant
that the security agency is given no option to discontinue the security
arrangement­if   no   payment   is   received   for   substantial   period   is
concerned, that only deserves to be stated to be rejected.  This is so
because there is not even a single instance placed before me to indicate
that in spite of such request having been made by the security agency
the concerned agency was denied such relief.   On the other hand,
atleast   in   couple   of   applications,   I   have   permitted   certain   security
agencies to   discontinue  the  arrangement as  soon as  other  suitable
arrangement were to be provided by the Official Liquidator and which
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

53
liberty has already been availed by this very applicant in respect of this
very assignment.  Suffice it to observe that if the security agencies were
so willing, they could have moved the Court for appropriate directions
with immediate dispatch.  No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to
what prevented the security agencies to wait for couple of years, in
some   cases   almost   nine   years,   to   apply   to   the   Court   for   suitable
directions in spite of the fact that no payment was being received by
them in respect of the stated services continuously offered by them to
protect and preserve the assets of the company in liquidation.
i) Needless to observe that the security agency would be free to
walk   out   from   the   arrangement   on   the   date   notified   to   the   Official
Liquidator   in   the   communication   sent   to   him,   provided,   the   Official
Liquidator is able to make suitable arrangement of appointing another
security agency.     Indeed, to preserve the assets of the company in
liquidation, the Official Liquidator is obliged to submit his report to seek
necessary directions not only to permit the existing security agency to
walk out of the security arrangement but at the same time to appoint
new   security   agency   in   place   of   the   existing   security   agency   on
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

54
appropriate terms.  If the Official Liquidator fails to submit such report
and seek directions of the Court within reasonable time, the concerned
security agency is free to apply to the Court for appropriate directions in
that behalf, which application can be decided by the Court on its own
merits.
j) As aforesaid, insofar as present application is concerned, there is
no reason to overturn the recommendation of the Official Liquidator for
appointing three security guards per shift with one common supervisor
to ensure protection and preservation of the assets of the company in
liquidation particularly because the movable assets were valued to the
extent of around Rs.3.85 crores.  It is also seen that neither the movable
nor the immovable assets of the company in question could be sold due
to pending proceedings before the D.R.T..  However, the amount which
is payable to the applicant can be offered only from the sale proceeds.  I
am informed that the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation
th
already notified for 17   March 2008 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Ahemdabad.     In   case   the   sale   does   not   proceed   further   for   some
reason, the Official Liquidator shall forthwith submit report before this
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

55
Court seeking direction to recover the outstanding dues payable to the
applicant agency from the secured creditors in proportion to their claim
amount.
19. Re. : Company Application No.614 of 2007  :
a) Insofar as Company Application No.614 of 2007 for recovery of
outstanding dues in relation to security charges provided to preserve the
assets of Rajesh Dying & Bleaching Works Ltd. (company in liquidation)
is concerned, it transpires from the record that the winding­up order
th
came to be passed on 19   February 1999.   Consequent thereto the
Official  Liquidator  took   over   possession   of   movable   and   immovable
th
assets of the company in liquidation on 24  May 1999.  The immovable
property of the company in liquidation is stated to be Plot admeasuring
5,673.60   square   meters   situate   at   CTS   Nos.687   and   662/1,   Kurla­
Andheri Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai­72 on the main road in
an industrial estate (opposite Orkay Mills) where there are other factory
units.  The factory premises of the company in liquidation is about 200
mtrs. away from the main road.  Besides the immovable property, the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

56
Official Liquidator took over possession of the movable assets as noted
in the valuer's report, approximate valuation whereof is stated to be
around Rs.14.00 lakhs.  The particulars of movable assets furnished in
the valuer's report reads thus :­

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

57

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

58

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

59

b) After   the   Official   Liquidator   took   over   possession,     he
simultaneously   appointed   the   applicant   to   provide   security   to   the
movable and immovable assets of the company in liquidation with effect
th
from 24   May 1999 itself.   Initially ten guards and one supervisor per
shift   totalling   to   30   guards   and   three   supervisors   round     “o”  clock
arrangement was provided.   Justification for providing ten guards and
one supervisor security arrangement as stated across the bar is that at
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

60
the relevant time there was strong opposition from the workers and to
preserve the property from any damage it was decided that atleast ten
security guards with one supervisor round “o” clock should be engaged.
That   arrangement   continued   till   April   2000   when   the   security
arrangement was reduced to 5 security guards and one supervisor per
shift totalling 15 guards and three supervisors round “o” clock.   No
explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the Official Liquidator to
proceed with sale of the properties in question in terms of provisions of
Section 457(2A) of the Act within the specified time.  If that were to be
done within specified time, the necessity of continuing of such heavy
security arrangement would not have been necessary at all.  However,
the Official Liquidator submitted report for the first time in January 2002
to seek directions of the Company Court.   The Official Liquidator was
th
required to resubmit the report which was done on 13   August 2002.
Eventually, the Official Liquidator was permitted to engage valuer in
September 2002.  Thereafter, valuation of the movable assets was done
th
and the said assets were put to sale on 14  January 2003.  After the
movable assets were sold in the Court auction it fetched only Rs.15.30
lakhs. After that sale, the security arrangement was reduced to only two
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

61
security guards and one supervisor per shift totalling 6 guards and one
supervisor round “O” clock.  Significantly, the security charges claimed
st
by the applicant for all this period has piled up over Rs.34 lakh as on 31
December 2007.  
c) The counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant
cannot be blamed for the situation as the applicant had no option but to
provide   sufficient   number   of   security   guards   having   regard   to   the
situation prevailing at the factory premises.  Indeed, this stand appears
to be attractive if considered as an isolated case. However, as I have
found earlier, the pattern which emerges from all the assignments and
the steps taken by the Official Liquidator during the relevant period, is
obviously an act of omission or commission with purpose, There was no
reason for the Official Liquidator to not submit necessary report to the
Court within reasonable time so as to ensure that the assets are sold as
expeditiously as possible for taking the winding­up order to its logical
end.  That has not happened in the present case which is evident from
the events recorded earlier.   The Official Liquidator went slow in the
matter till January 2002 when he submitted the report for the first time
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

62
and thereafter took almost eight months to resubmit further report to
invite necessary directions from the Company Court.  No justification for
this lapse is forthcoming. This is notwithstanding the obligation of the
Official Liquidator to take steps within a reasonable time for sale of
assets (atleast movable assets could have been completed within a
reasonable   time),   if   not   within   the   statutory   period   provided   under
section 457(2A) of the Companies Act.  However, that happened only in
2003 and that delay is cited as justification not only for providing higher
number of security guards round “o” clock to preserve the assets of
company in liquidation but also for the charges to provide such security
arrangement, which has far exceeded the sale proceeds of the movable
assets.
d) Moreover, it is nobody's case that there was no compound wall to
the factory premises or that the movables were lying in open space
without   a   compound   wall.     The   factory   premises   could   have   been
secured by closing the main gate/door. In that case it would be wholly
unnecessary to provide such a heavy security in the factory premises.
Even if the argument of the applicant that at the beginning there was
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

63
strong resistence from the workers is to be accepted as it is, for the
reasons already indicated and the finding reached in the earlier part of
this order that there seems to be a consistent partern indicating that no
sensitivity   has   been   shown   to   observe  proportionality   of   number   of
security personnel to be deputed on the site and for disposing off the
assets with utmost despatch so as to take the order of winding­up to its
logical   end   which   inevitably   resulted   in   increasing   of   avoidable
expenditure on security charges far exceeding the value of the assets in
question.  Even in this case the value of the movable assets recovered
th
on 14   January 2003 is only Rs.15.30 lakhs;   whereas, the security
charges from May 1999 till December 2007 have piled­up to around
Rs.34 lakhs.  This is a matter of concern.  The inevitable conclusion is
that the concerned Official Liquidator was more than willing to spend on
security charges in  the guise  of preserving the property, instead of
taking prompt steps to sell the assets of the company in liquidation so as
to ensure that fair returns/dividend is offered to the creditors and other
stakeholders including the workers of the company in liquidation.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

64
e) In my opinion, therefore, the claim becomes questionable, which
aspect will have to be enquired into in appropriate proceedings.  For the
time being, suffice it to observe that it is not possible to straight way
accede to the claim of the applicant regarding outstanding dues on the
assumption that services were offered for such high number of security
guards deployed on the factory premises for the relevant period.   All
aspects will have to be considered by the Official Liquidator having
regard to the observations made in this order.  After appropriate enquiry,
the  Official   Liquidator  will  be   free  to   make  payment  of   the  amount
determined to the applicant only from the sale proceeds of the assets of
the company. 
20.  :­
Re. : Company Application No.615 of 2007
a) Insofar as Company Application No.615 of 2007 in relation to
Enazai Finance Limited (in liquidation) is concerned, it is seen that the
th
winding­up order has been passed on 15  July 2005.  However, during
pendency of the company petition, Provisional Liquidator was appointed
th
on 26  April 1999.  The Provisional Liquidator took over possession of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

65
th
the assets of the company in liquidation on 29   November 1999 and
engaged   services   of   the   applicant   to   provide   security   to   19   plots
belonging to the company in liquidation situated at Village Collem, Tal.
Sanghum,   Goa   admeasuring   around   28,330.04   sq.mtrs.   area.     The
security arrangement, however, was limited to one security guard per
shift for all these plots in respect of first and second shifts; whereas, two
security  guards  were   deployed   for  night   shift.     No   arrangement  for
supervisor was provided by the security agency.  Going by the number
of security guards deployed  to preserve such huge property, the same
is obviously just and proper number of security guards.  
b) However, the question that remains to be considered is whether
the Official Liquidator has committed any lapse in not selling the said
immovable properties  in respect of which  security arrangement  was
required to be deployed since December 1999.   It appears that an
attempt was made by the Official Liquidator to sell the properties in
question only in 2005.  However, that did not fructify on account of stay
granted  by Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) Nos.406­
th
409 of 2004, dated 18   November 2005.   The fact remains that the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

66
Official Liquidator did not take any steps in the matter till 2005.  Be that
as   it   may,   the   appropriate   course   for   the   Official   Liquidator   is   to
ascertain the present status of the stay order granted by the Supreme
Court   and   if   that   order   is   already   vacated,   to   forthwith   put   up   the
properties for sale.   In the event the stay order is still continuing, the
Official Liquidator will be free to proceed in respect of other properties
which are not subject matter of attachment such as at Aurangabad and
Goa,   if   the   same   are   available   for   sale.     Steps   for   sale   of   those
properties shall be taken forthwith by the Official Liquidator so that the
outstanding claim of the applicant can be paid from the sale proceeds of
the said properties of the company in liquidation.
21.  :­
Re. : Company Application No.512 of 2007
a) Insofar as Company Application No.512 of 2007 is concerned, the
st
Provisional Liquidator has been appointed in terms of order dated 21
February 2001.   Consequent to that order the Official Liquidator took
possession  of  immovable properties  situated   at  five  different  places
belonging   to   the   company   in   liquidation   on   different   dates.     Two
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

67
properties are situate at Ratnagiri which consist of land and structures.
The lands Gat Nos.1761 and 1768 at TVA Lanja, Village Gawhane are
212 and 352 gunthas i.e. five ares and over eight acres respectively,
whereas area of room nos.205 and 206 (combined) is 225 sq.ft. Carpet
area, 270 sq.ft. Built up area excluding furniture and fixtures.  Besides,
there are three other properties which have been taken over by the
Official Liquidator situate at Dahivad Tal.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, at Shirpur
proper­District Dhule, at Murbad­District Thane.   The land situate in
Thane   District   is   agricultural   land   and   a   bungalow   and   possession
th
whereof  has been taken   recently   on  9   May  2007.    However,   one
security guard per shift has been appointed in respect of said property.
Similarly, only one security guard per shift is appointed in respect of the
property situate at Shirpur which admeasures about 1299 sq.ft..  Insofar
as property as Dahivad is concerned, the same admeasures about 46
acres.   In relation to the said property, justification for appointing two
guards per shift is understandable, but insofar as properties situate at
Ratnagiri which are hardly about four and eight acres respectively, it is
incomprehensible that two guards per shift were necessary.   Besides,
the question still remains is as to why the Official Liquidator has failed to
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

68
take   steps   to   sell   the   properties   in   question   since   2001.     Atleast
properties at Ratnagiri, Shirpur and Dahivad, possession whereof has
been taken as back as in October 2001, no explanation is forthcoming
as to why steps as required by the provisions of Companies Act within
reasonable time have not been taken by the Official Liquidator.  There is
nothing to indicate that stay from any Court was operating in relation to
such sale.  
b) As noted earlier, the inevitable conclusion is that the delay in sale
has resulted in piling of the security charges.  The claim of the applicant
in relation to providing security to five properties has piled up to the
extent of about 45.00 lakh since October 2001.  If the properties were to
be sold with promptitude, there would have been no reason to continue
the security arrangement for such a long period.  All these aspects will
have to be addressed in appropriate enquiry to ascertain whether it is an
act of commission of omission of the officials of Official Liquidator and
connived with the security agencies. In the event it is found that the
inaction was on account of such connivance, the claim of the concerned
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

69
security agency would become questionable in which case the matter
will have to be viewed in different perspective.
c) For the time being suffice it to observe that the Official Liquidator
will have to consider all these aspects before the claim of the applicant
for outstanding dues is accepted.  The Official Liquidator is directed to
ensure that all the immovable properties are put to sale within the time
specified by law and in any case within reasonable period from today.
The applicant security agency would be entitled for payment subject to
the outcome of the enquiry required to be undertaken in terms of the
observations made in this order.
22.  :­
Re. : Company Application No.1009 of 2007
a) The company was ordered to be wound­up in terms of order dated
th
7   December 1998.   Consequent thereto the Official Liquidator took
th
possession of the assets of the company in liquidation on 26  June 2000
and   simultaneously   appointed   the   applicant   as   security   agency   to
safeguard  the   assets   of   the   company   in   liquidation.     The   applicant
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

70
deployed two guards per shift in three shifts i.e. totally six guards round
“o” clock.  However, this strength of security guards has been reduced
th
with effect from 25  August 2005 to only one guard per shift.  The assets
th
of the company in liquidation have been sold in Court auction on 4  May
2006.  In view of the sale of the assets, the services of security agency
th
was discontinued from 6  June 2006.  It is seen that no payment has
been made to the applicant since the date of appointment.  To preserve
the assets of the company which were originally estimated at around
Rs.10.00   lakhs,   two   guards   per  shift   were   deployed   on   the   factory
premises.  Whereas, the claim as aforesaid of the applicant agency has
piled up to around Rs.14.00 lakhs towards security charges in respect of
the said immovable assets.  However, when both the movable as well
as   immovable   assets   were   put   to   sale,   the   sale   has   fetched   only
Rs.17.00 lakh.  The figures speak for themselves as to the manner in
which the security services were continued for unreasonably long period
in the first place and by appointing excessive security guards per shift
coupled with the fact that no steps were taken to sell the property even
when there was no stay order operating in relation to such properties.
All these matters will have to be enquired into at the appropriate level
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

71
and taken to its logical end
b) The argument of the applicant that UCO Bank has already agreed
to take the burden of security charges and the sale of assets has been
at the instance of UCO Bank, the applicant be paid the outstanding dues
from the said sale proceeds, does not  commend to me.  The counsel
for the Official Liquidator points out that UCO Bank registered protest
and disputed the factum of services offered by the applicant agency and
liability to pay any amount for such services.  All these aspects will have
to be considered by the Official Liquidator while adjudicating the claim of
the applicant after giving notice to the UCO Bank as well as to the other
secured creditors.
c) The counsel for the applicant would contend that the number of
security guards to be appointed has been ratified by the Court.   That
argument does not commend to me.   Similar contention has already
been answered by me in the earlier part of this judgement.
23. Re. : Company Application No.101 of 2008  :­
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

72
a) As far as Company Application No.101 of 2008 is concerned, the
rd
winding­up order came to be passed on 23  January 2004.  The Official
Liquidator was, however, appointed as Provisional Liquidator by order
th
dated 19  October 2001.  The Official Liquidator took over possession of
th
the assets of the company in liquidation on 20   February 2002 and
appointed the applicant security agency to safeguard the said property.
Although   the   Official   Liquidator   took   possession   of   movable   and
immovable   assets   of   the   company   in   liquidation,   however,   in   due
course, it transpired that the property possessed by the company in
liquidation   was   leasehold   property.     The   owner   of   the   property
approached for possession of the said property.  I am informed that the
Rent Court has already decreed the suit for possession filed by the
owner.    On  the basis  of  said  Decree,  the  bailiff   has taken  forcible
possession of the immovable property.  The owner has, however, given
an undertaking that the movable assets lying in the premises will be
th
preserved.   That assurance was given on 4   February 2005 by the
owner.  It appears that initially the security agency was not permitted to
enter   the   premises   on   and   from   the   date   when   the   possession   of
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

73
immovable property has been taken over by the owner.   That fact is
rd
conceded in the communication sent by the security agency dated 3
June 2007 addressed to the Official Liquidator.   The security agency
called upon the Official Liquidator to relieve them from their assignment
and pay the outstanding dues.  There is nothing to indicate as to what
steps   have   been   taken   by   the   Official   Liquidator   in   spite   of   said
communication.   The fact remains that originally nine security guards
th
and three supervisors were appointed on 20  February 2002 to protect
the   movable   property   of   the   company   in   liquidation,   the   estimated
valuation whereof is over Rs.40.20 lakhs.  However, strength of security
th
guards came to be reduced to two guards per shift from 6   February
2005 after the owner took over possession of the immovable property
and   gave   an   undertaking   to   preserve   the   movable   assets   of   the
company in liquidation.  As a matter of fact, after February 2005, in what
manner two security guards were providing security to the movable
assets   has   not   been   placed   on   record.     On   the   other   hand,   the
communication sent by the security agency to the Official Liquidator
would indicate that the security guards of the applicant were not even
permitted to enter the premises.   If so, there is no question of any
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

74
security service offered atleast since  February 2005.   It necessarily
follows that the claim of the applicant of having provided security even
after February 2005 becomes doubtful.  At any rate, no explanation is
forthcoming as to why the security guards were continued in spite of
undertaking   of   the   owner   which   has   been   accepted  by   the   Official
Liquidator in February 2005.  I am informed that the security agency has
st
been discontinued  w.e.f. 31  May 2005.  The movables of the company
in   liquidation   are   presently   in   the   custody   of   the   owners   of   the
immovable property.  Taking over all view of the matter, the appropriate
course is to direct the Official Liquidator to examine the claim of the
applicant keeping in mind the observations made in the earlier part olf
this Judgement and submit report to this Court for such directions as
may be advised.
23. Re. : Company Application No.100 of 2008  :­
a) The   Official   Liquidator   has   been   appointed   as   Provisional
th
Liquidator   in   terms   of   order   dated   14   March   2000.     The   Official
Liquidator took possession of the movable and immovable assets of the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

75
company in liquidation.  The movable assets of the company consists of
following :­

Insofar as immovable assets are concerned, the factory premises is
situate at Survey Nos.290/297, Village Kondle, Kudus Aghai Road, Tal.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

76
Wada, Dist. Thane.   Initially nine security guards were appointed to
safeguard the property to work in shifts namely two guards and one
supervisor  per   shift.     However,   after   deliberations   with   the   secured
th
creditors in  the  meeting of 13   June  2000, it  was  agreed  that  two
security guards per shift and over all one supervisor, thus making the
total strength to seven persons, would be more than sufficient.  Going by
the  said  report   which   is  a  conscious decision  taken   by   the   Official
Liquidator at the instance of secured creditors. It is possible to take a
view  that   the  security  strength  provided  at  the  site  was   necessary.
However, the question that remains to be addressed is why appropriate
steps   were   not   taken   by   the   Official   Liquidator   for   disposal   of   the
movable and immovable assets expeditiously although there was no
impediment for such sale. Almost eight years have elapsed but no steps
to sell the assets in question have been taken.  The statement submitted
by the Official Liquidator concedes the position that no attempt to sale
the   property   has   been   made   for   all   these   years.     Resultantly,   the
security charges have piled up to around Rs.19.00 lakh.   The Official
Liquidator ought to have called upon the secured creditor to deposit the
security charges amount besides taking steps to  sell the assets of the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

77
respondent company.  The Official Liquidator shall take necessary steps
in   this   behalf   and   submit   report   forthwith   for   seeking   appropriate
directions from the Court.
24. Re. : Company Application No.1007 of 2007 :­
th
a) The winding­up order was passed on  8  June 1994. Consequent
thereto the Official Liquidator took over possession of the assets of the
th
company   in   liquidation   on   5   January   1999   and   simultaneously
appointed the applicant security agency to safeguard the immovable
property at Village Usarli Khurd, Tal.Panvel, Dist. Raigad.  Initially the
applicant claims to have deployed two guards per shift i.e. six guards.
However, the strength of guards was reduced to one guard per shift i.e.
st
three guards per day w.e.f. 1  September 2005.  Be that as it may, the
total   outstanding   dues   claimed   by   the   applicant   is   in   the   sum   of
th
Rs.9,04,551/­ payable on account of security charges w.e.f. 5  January
st
1999 till 31   December 2007.   The reason why initially two security
guards were appointed per shift from 1999 and which arrangement was
continued till September 2005, is not forthcoming.   In any case, if the
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

78
applicant could manage with one guard per shift since September 2005,
I see no justification as to why same arrangement could not have been
th
accepted as proper arrangement w.e.f. 5  January 1999 itself.  In the
present case, although issue relating to excessive number of guards
would be relevant for the period from January 1999 till September 2005,
but there is yet another facet which needs to be considered.  Inasmuch
as, no reason is forthcoming as to why the Official Liquidator was not in
a   position   to   proceed   with   the   sale   of   the   movable   assets   so   that
recurring   liability   would   have   been   reduced.     The   amount   payable
towards security charges to the applicant has now piled up to over
Rs.9.00  lakhs.  This is obviously on account of  the inaction or act of
omission and commission of the officials of Official Liquidator in not
taking prompt steps for sale of the assets in terms of requirements of
provisions of Companies Act and at any rate within a reasonable period.
These aspects will have to be considered by the Official Liquidator in the
light   of   observations   made   in   the   earlier   part   of   this   order   while
examining   the   claim   of   the   applicant   and   to   submit   report   seeking
appropriate directions regarding payment to the applicant as well as sale
of the immovable properties in question.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

79
GENERAL
25. That   takes  us  to  the   nature  of directions   to  be  issued  in  the
present set of applications so as to obviate further loss to the stake­
holders of the company in liquidation.  In that context I had called upon
the Official Liquidator to furnish the names of companies where the
secured creditors have set up their claims.  Pursuant thereto the Official
Liquidator has placed on record that there are about 37 companies in
relation to which the secured creditors have registered their claims.
Insofar as those companies are concerned, the Official Liquidator may
be free to call upon the secured creditors to take over the liability of
security services engaged for preservation of assets of the company in
liquidation.     The   secured   creditors   may   be   called   upon   to   deposit
commensurate amount.  If such deposit is made, the Official Liquidator
may be free to disburse appropriate amount to the security agency only
after thorough enquiry in respect of relevant matters and on recording
clear opinion that the security agency is entitled for such amount.  The
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

80
amount, however, be disbursed to the concerned security agency only
after taking prior permission of the Court.
26. Insofar as companies in which there are no claims of secured
creditors (about 16 in number), as indicated in the chart by the Official
Liquidator, obviously the Official Liquidator will not be able to create
funds to discharge the liability of the security agencies until the assets
are sold in auction.  
27. It is also noticed that out of 104 companies at least in respect of
60 companies, proceedings are pending before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal at the instance of secured creditors.   Obviously, so long as
those proceedings are not finally terminated, the Official Liquidator will
not be in a position to take any precepitative   steps.   However, the
Official   Liquidator   in   those   cases   may   move   the   concerned   Debts
Recovery Tribunal so as to persuade the Tribunal to dispose off the
assets of  the company in  liquidation so that sale  proceeds  can  be
invested to be made subject to the outcome of DRT proceedings.  Until
such time, the secured creditors at whose instance proceedings before
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

81
the   DRT   are   pending,   should   be   made   liable   to   pay   proportionate
security charges.   There can be no doubt that if   such   application is
moved before the DRT, suitable orders would be passed in the interest
of all concerned.  For, the purpose of sale of assets either by the Official
Liquidator or the secured creditors at whose instance the DRT recovery
proceedings are pending is common.   Obviously, both would like to
realize the best value of the assets of the company in liquidation so as
to settle  the outstanding claims and avoid paying recurring cost on
security service charges therefor.
28. Needless to observe that in respect of the company in which no
such DRT proceeding is pending and where there is no impediment in
sale of the assets of the company in liquidation, there is no reason for
prolonging the process of sale.   In such cases, the Official Liquidator
shall   ensure   that   the   assets   of   the   company   in   liquidation   are
immediately put up for sale forthwith by following necessary procedure.
It   is  only   on   realization   of   the   sale   proceeds  that   the   claim   of  the
concerned   security   agency   can   be   satisfied   or   settled   out   of   such
amount to the extent it is found to be acceptable and legitimate.  
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

82
29. In   other   words,   in   all   cases,   unless   there   is   impediment   in
proceeding with sale of the assets of the company in liquidation, the
Official Liquidator shall be obliged to take immediate steps for sale of
the assets of the company in liquidation. While putting up the assets of
the company in liquidation for sale, the Official Liquidator may have due
regard to the fact as to whether it is possible to sell the same as one lot
or separately so as to derive best returns there from.   In case, the
Official Liquidator is of the opinion that the movable assets should be
put up for sale in separate lot, he may do so by seeking prior directions
from the Court in that behalf at the earliest.   In any case, once the
movable assets of the company are sold and the sale of immovable
assets is required to be deferred, depending on the nature of immovable
property, the Official Liquidator shall issue instructions for reducing the
number of security personnel so as to lessen the liability of the company
in liquidation on that head.
30. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that the issue of payment
of outstanding dues towards security services should not be linked with
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

83
the sale of assets of the company.  Instead, the Official Liquidator be
directed to pay the due amount from and out of the Consolidated Funds.
This argument clearly overlooks that the Consolidated Fund has been
created under the Court’s Order for a particular purpose.  It is noticed
that the Consolidated Fund was created in terms of order passed by the
th
Company judge on 9   November 1978 on the report of the Official
th
Liquidator dated 7   November 1978.   In the said report, the Official
Liquidator had noted that as per the prevailing practice in the office of
the Official Liquidator at the relevant time company staff were working
as   Senior   Assistants   in   the   General   Cadre,   though   the   Court   had
sanctioned   17   Assistants   and   whose   services   were   engaged   for
effectuating the order of winding­up in respect of different companies.
The Official Liquidator was of the view that for logistical convenience it
would be appropriate to create a consolidated fund to be formed by
drawing required amounts from the accounts of various companies so
that the salary of the staff employed by the Official Liquidator can be
paid from the said fund.  That suggestion was made as common staff
was   employed   by   the   Official   Liquidator   to   handle   the   liquidation
proceedings of all the companies where winding­up order has been
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

84
passed.   In other words, the consolidated fund was created   for the
limited purpose of “paying salaries of the company paid staff” from the
said fund.  Accordingly, it is not possible to accede to the request of the
applicants to issue direction to the Official Liquidator to disburse their
outstanding dues from that fund.  
31. Insofar as applicants are concerned, they are providing security
services in respect of specific companies in liquidation.   It is not as if
their services are availed for all the companies under the control of
Official Liquidator as is the case of the company paid staff.  Moreover,
as   noted   earlier,   the   outstanding   dues   of   ten   security   agencies   in
respect of all the 104 assignments is over Rs.12.87 crores. If the claim
of   the   applicant   is   accepted  as   it   is,   it   will  far  exceed   the   amount
available in the consolidated fund to the extent of Rs.9.28 crores.  As
aforesaid, the fund is required to defray the salaries and charges of
Rs.8.29 crores, towards  Printing  and  Stationery Rs.55.24 lakhs and
Office Expenses Rs.43.45 lakhs.  In this view of the matter, there is no
question of paying outstanding dues of the security agencies (applicants
herein) out of the consolidated fund.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

85
32. For the aforesaid reasons, all the applications are being disposed
off by this common order in the following terms :­
A)The Official Liquidator shall examine the claim of each of the applicant
herein and other security agencies whose claims are pending before
him, keeping in mind the observations made hetherto;
B)The Official Liquidator shall ensure that  the assets (movable and
immovable) of company in liquidation in respect of which there is no
claim of any secured creditor and there is no impediment for sale of
such assets, shall take steps to sell those assets forthwith by following
necessary procedure and sale proceeds recovered from such sale
shall be disbursed in accordance with law;
C)In cases where the secured creditors have set up claims in respect of
the assets of company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator shall call
upon the secured creditors to deposit suitable commensurate amount
towards security charges to be paid to the concerned security agency
after due verification of its claim.  In addition, if there is no impediment
to   sell   the   assets   (movable/immovable)   of   such   company   in
liquidation, the Official Liquidator may simultaneously ensure that the
assets are put up for sale forthwith by following necessary procedure;
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:40 :::

86
D)In cases where the secured creditors of any company have instituted
recovery proceedings before the DRT, the Official Liquidator shall
forthwith move the concerned DRT praying for sale of the assets of
the company and to invest the sale proceeds in suitable fixed deposit
scheme   to   derive   best   returns   thereon,   which   amount   can   be
disbursed subject to such orders to be passed by the competent
Court;
E)Copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the Secretary, Ministry of
Company   Affairs,   Government   of   India   for   information   and   taking
necessary action as may be advised in the light of observations made
hereinbefore.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

87
Exhibit “A”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

88
Exhibit “ B1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

89

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

90

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

91
Exhibit “B-2”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

92

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

93

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

94

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

95

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

96

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

97

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

98
Exhibit “ C -1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

99

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

100
Exhibit “C-2”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

101

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

102

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

103

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

104

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

105

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

106

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

107
Exhibit “ D-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

108

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

109

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

110
Exhibit “ D-2”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

111

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

112

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

113
6. 3/3/99 M/s. AVI
Industries Ltd.
(In Liqn.)
a) Immoveable property lying at
Vill;Kukrali, Ambala, Haryana.
b) 48,279.70 sq.fts.
c) Valuation done in March 03. As
bids received were substantially
below the valuation, the sale was
not confirmed by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 19/11/03,
and further ordered fresh valuation.
Fresh valuation done on December
05. Fresh valuation in sealed cover.
However the valuer had pointed out
that the immoveable property is not
in the name of the company in
liquidation. As the ownership was
in dispute the OL did not submit
report for sale. Recently the
Official Liquidator had deputed his
representative to visit the above
immoveable property. The
representative had informed that
there was no security guards at the
site. Lately the Local
Commissioners who were
appointed by CLB in the matter of
the company in liqn. had submitted
on behalf of Union of India an
application in C. A. No. 1252 of
2007 in C. P. No. 351 of 97 before
this Hon’ble Court praying for
orders among other things to assist
the OL to attach the property of
company in liqn., based on the
interim report I & II prepared by
local commissioners after intensive
investigation. This Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 5/12/07, allowed
the prayers of the aforesaid
application with certain
modification. In the light of the said
orders the OL is examing the
interim report of the local
commissioners. In the circumstance
the Official Liquidator is proposing
No secured
Creditor
Total 6 Security Guards From March 99 to
Sep.05
a) Rs.16,38,047/-
b) NIL
c) Rs. 16,38,047/-
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

114

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

115

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

116

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

117

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

118
Exhibit-E-1

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

119

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

120

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

121

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

122
Exhibit “ F-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

123

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

124

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

125

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

126

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

127

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

128

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

129

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

130

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

131

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

132
Ehibit G-1

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

133

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

134

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

135
Exhibit”H-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

136
Exhibit”I-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

137

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

138
Exhibit “J-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

139
Exhibit “K-1”

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

140

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

141
In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Company Application 748 Of 2007
Company Petition No. 79 Of 1991

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

142

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

143
In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 100 Of 2008
In
Company Petition No. 163 Of 1999

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

144

* This office a written letter dated 29.02.05 followed by reminder dated 3.09.07 for obtaining concurs of bank
the advocate of bank has replied on 12.07.07.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

145
In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application 1007 Of 2007
In
Company Petition No. 339 Of 1990

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

146

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

147

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

148
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 993 2006
In
Company Petition No.285 of 94
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

149

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

150

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

151
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 101 of 2008
In
Company Petition No.1125 of 2001

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

152

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

153
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 645 of 2007
In
Company Petition No.1128 of 2000

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

154

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

155
In the High Court of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 483 of 2005
In
Company Petitions No. 560 of 1998/628 of 1998

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

156

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

157
In the High Court of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 1008 of 2007

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

158

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

159
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No.861 of 2007
In

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

160

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

161
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No.615 of 2007
In

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

162

* A letter dated 2.12.2005 received from Registrar Nagpur alongwith copy of record of proceedings dated 18.11.2005
of the Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned petition for special leave to appeal (CRL) No. (S) 406-409 of
2004 between Yuvraj & Others, petitioner verses State of Maharashtra & Others, respondent herein order was passed
on 18.11.2005 with direction that there shall not be sale of attached properties. In response to this office letter dated
16.1.2006 a letter dated 20.2.2006 received from Nilesh L. Parekh ex-director and as per their knowledge the property
situated at Aurangabad and Goa were not attached by anybody.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

163
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Origianl Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No. 1009 of 2007
In
Company Petition No.109 of 1995
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

164

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

165

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

166
In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No 614 Of 2007
In
Company Petition No 777 Of 1997

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

167

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

168
e High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application No 738 Of 2007
In
Company Petition No 383 Of 1996
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

169

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

170

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

171
In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Company Application512 Of 2007
In
Company Petition No. 773 Of 2000

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

172

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

173

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:41 :::

174
RECOVERY PROCEEDING OF COMPANIES PEBNDING WITH DRT

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:42 :::

175
COMPANIES WITH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
WHERE SEUCRED CREDITORS ARE THERE

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:42 :::

176
COMPANIES WITH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR
WHERE NO SEUCRED CREDITORS ARE THERE

::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2024 07:32:42 :::