1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.321 OF 2008. M/s. Sudhir Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant/ Org.Petitioner. vs. M/s. Atharva Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. R.M. Kedia, for Applicant. None for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 28TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. This application is taken out by the applicant for appointment of provisional liquidator of the respondent company to take charge of the assets, books of account and the properties of the respondent with all powers under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Though the application is filed on 13 th July 2009, the applicants have submitted to the Court that they have forwarded the papers and proceedings to the respondent by post only on 8 th August 2 2009, i.e. almost a month after its filing. In fact, no acknowledgment from the respondent company has been received by the applicant till date. In support of the said allegations, the petitioner has in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the application, alleged that the respondent company has transferred its assets and properties without adequate consideration to his relatives and/or companies as the respondent company has no bonafide intention to continue the business of the company. 3. When this Court called upon the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant to substantiate the allegations made in paragraph 8 based on which the appointment of provisional liquidator is sought, the learned Advocate for the applicant was unable to produce any documents. Appointment of a provisional liquidator of a company is a relief which cannot be sought unless a clear case inter- alia of siphoning of the assets / funds or waste of assets of the company by the Directors/ shareholders is made out. In the instant case, not a single document is produced before the Court by the 3 applicant in support of the allegations against the respondent company, and the application is filed on a mere apprehension which cannot be allowed. 4. In view thereof, no case is made out for appointment of provisional liquidator of the respondent company. Company application is, therefore, dismissed. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]