1 ca582-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.205 OF 1997 M/s.Sunco Credit Capital Pvt Ltd .. Petition And Ms.Lalita Rasiklal Bhutta .. Applicant versus The O.L of M/s.Bhutta Printing & Allied Industries Ltd .. Respondent Mr.Avinash Singh Gautama i/by MDP & Partners for the original petitioners. Mr.Prashant J. Pandit for the applicant. Dr.T.Pandian, O.L present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 20th August 2011. P.C.: . This is a company application wherein the applicant who claims to be Ex-Director of the original respondent-applicant, prays that the order passed for winding up the original respondent- applicant be set aside. 2 On perusal of the affidavits on record, a conditional order was made earlier, permitting the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 ca582-10.doc 6,00,000/- to show his bonafides and only thereafter, his application to recall winding up, will be considered. 3 It is stated that said condition has been complied with inasmuch as the amount has been deposited within the time stipulated in this Court’s order dated 17th February 2011. Thereafter, the application was placed on 15th July 2011 before the learned single Judge of this Court who after hearing both sides, recorded that the parties are ready and willing to put an end to their disputes amicably and if the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is paid to the original petitioner, that will be accepted in full and final settlement of the claims. 4 It is stated that sum of Rs.9,00,000/- has been brought in Court in the form of pay order drawn in the name of the original petitioner. The advocate appearing for the original petitioner states that he will accept this pay order and in addition to it, the sum deposited may be permitted to be withdrawn with accrued interest. 5 Upon hearing both sides and since it is reported that there are 3 ca582-10.doc no claims received by the Official Liquidator, against the applicant- original respondent although public advertisement was issued by the Liquidator, interest of justice would be served, if the order winding up the original respondent M/s.Bhutta Printing and Allied Industries Ltd., is recalled and set aside. The sum of Rs.6,00,000/- deposited in the Court be allowed to be withdrawn by the original petitioner with accrued interest on production of an authenticated copy of this order. Further, the pay order in the sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- being handed over to the petitioner’s advocate in Court, it is directed that as there are no claims outstanding as between parties that the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- shall be treated as full and final settlement of all claims of the original petitioner against the original respondent. 6 This Court has noted a very disturbing feature inasmuch as when the company was liquidated and the Liquidator was appointed, the properties and assets of the company were to be safeguarded by the Liquidator. He, therefore, appointed a security agency to safeguard and protect the properties. The Ex-Director- applicant before this Court in this company application made a 4 ca582-10.doc grievance that goods worth Rs.10,95,000/- have been stolen and the security agency is fully responsible for this theft. 7 The Liquidator was directed to consider this grievance and now the Official Liquidator has filed an affidavit stating that the security agency M/s.Garuda Keepers (India) Pvt Ltd has pointed out that at the time of appointment of security, there was no inventory made of the articles lying in the premises, nor any list was handed over and that the premises were not opened by the representative of Official Liquidator to inspect articles lying in the premises nor any inspection was offered to them. He has also invited attention of the Official Liquidator to an order passed on 27th August 2010 in Company Application No.399 of 2010. It is stated M/s.Sadguru Security and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., have been put in charge of the security of the company’s assets from 22nd October 2010. At that time also, no inventory was taken. Whatever articles were lying there are not worth Rs.10,95,000/- . 8 On a query from the Court, the Official Liquidator stated that there is nothing before him to controvert these statements in the 5 ca582-10.doc affidavit and particularly in paras 5 and 6 thereof. The security charges are due and payable. 9 To my mind, the state of affairs indicate that the office of the Official Liquidator attached to this Court are equally guilty in this case. The security agency has also committed a serious lapse in not making any inventory or list of the articles while taking possession from the Liquidator so as to safeguard and protect the property. If the office of the Liquidator as also the security agency have not taken the necessary protective measures, they cannot turn around and blame each other and cause loss to the parties like company in liquidation. In the instant case, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Official Liquidator nor the statements made on affidavit can be accepted. However, since the security agency has not appeared before the Court nor has been put to notice, interest of justice would be served by permitting the applicant so also the company in liquidation to initiate such proceedings as are permissible in law including seeking compensation for alleged losses and all contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. The Official Liquidator shall cause an 6 ca582-10.doc enquiry to be made and seek explanation from all concerned as to why inventory has not been taken of the articles at any time from 1999 till date. The Liquidator should also take steps to delete the name of both security agencies, namely, M/s.Garuda Keepers (India) Pvt Ltd and M/s.Sadguru Security and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd., from the panel of Security Agencies and Consultants maintained by him. The Official Liquidator shall place the report of the enquiry that is caused to be made as per the directions in this application and place it on file within a period of four months from today. It is also directed that in all cases in which winding up orders have been passed and the Official Liquidator has taken possession of the premises and the properties including movable and immovable assets, an inventory/list shall be prepared, if not already prepared and the security agency shall also be directed to execute necessary undertakings so as to indemnify any losses caused till such time it is appointed as security agency to safeguard the properties of the companies in liquidation. The Official Liquidator shall in all pending cases make such list by appointing the representative from his office so also he must obtain necessary affidavits and undertakings if not already done and all this shall be 7 ca582-10.doc concluded within a period of three months from today. In the instant case, bearing in mind that the present Official Liquidator has taken charge recently and the order of winding up was passed on 21st May 1999, that no costs are being imposed. However, in future, all cases wherever such complaints are made by the parties, costs will have to be borne by the Official Liquidator. 10 Company application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)