1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Company Appeal No. 3 of 1993 New India Assurance v. M/s Sindichem -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr B.G. Kulkarni, Adv for appellant Dr Anjan De, Adv for respondent Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 6th September 2011 1. Mr B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for appellant points out that records including the process in which appellant has settled the claim of respondent of Rs. 3,66,500/- are lying with Regional Office of appellant. He contends that respondent is accepting receipt of said amount and if respondent is not satisfied with that settlement, respondent has to take appropriate steps. He points out that design of respondent to take recourse to execution directly is not in accordance with law as this Court in impugned order dated 12th February 1993 has not undertaken any adjudication. Only direction issued is to settle the claim and, therefore, appellant was free even to reject it wholly. 2. According to Dr Anjan De, learned counsel appearing for respondent through Official Liquidator submits that prayer 2 (a) in OLR No. 1 of 1992 has been granted and, therefore, entire claim amount of Rs. 17,77,145/- has been accepted. He argues that operative direction contained in paragraph 4 of the order needs to be understood in background of prayer clause (a) in OLR. He further contends that appeal as filed is not maintainable. 3. In reply, Mr B.G. Kulkarni points out that because appellant could not appear on 12th February 1993, appellant was prohibited from pointing out several factual aspects and impugned order does not record any finding as to how and why entire amount of Rs. 17,77,145/- is payable to respondent on account of fire claim. He contends that if impugned order is to be read as a direction to pay entire amount, appeal is very much maintainable. 4. After considering respective counsel, we find that under Section 483 of the Companies Act, appeal contemplated is from any order or decision given in the matter of winding up of a company by a Company Judge. In this situation, we are not in a position to accept the contention of Dr Anjan De that appeal is not maintainable. 5. Merely because appellant did not appear, this Court could not have directed the present appellant to pay entire claim of insurance. The direction could have been possible only after due adjudication or after considering all the aspects involved in the matter. Impugned order does not show any application of mind. In fact, the order is passed on the report of Official 3 Liquidator. The order, therefore, could have only been to direct appellant to look into the claim made by the Official liquidator. 6. In this situation, as we find the impugned judgment dated 12th February 1993 passed on OLR No. 1 of 1992 not containing appropriate reasons, we quash and set aside the same. OLR No. 1 of 1992 stands restored back to the file of Company Judge for its proper decision on merit. All arguments raised by both the counsel are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage by Company Judge. Company Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Judge Judge joshi