1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY APPLICATION NO.837 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.265 OF 1997. Elegant Investrade Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicants. vs. The Official Liquidator & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr. J.P.Sen, i/b. Gaurang R. Mehta, for Applicants. The Official Liquidator, present. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH JULY 2009. P.C. This company application dated 15 th December 2004 is taken out by the applicants Elegant Investrade Private Limited seeking directions against the Official Liquidator who was appointed as provisional liquidator of Credential Finance Limited (Company) to forthwith remove the seal on the applicants’ premises, being office premises bearing 618, Maker Chamber-V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (the said premises) . 2. Some relevant facts which are required to be taken into consideration for the disposal of this company application are set out 2 hereunder. 3. Company petition no.265 of 1997 was filed by the Bank Banque Indo-Suez (subsequently known as Calyon Bank) (original petitioner) against the company. The said petition was dismissed on merits on 27 th March 1998. Though an appeal was filed by the original petitioner on 19 th July 1998, no interim orders were obtained. 4. In the meantime, the company entered into an agreement for sale dated 31 st July 1998, wherein they agreed to sell the said premises to the applicants for an amount of Rs. 72 lacs. Since the Times Bank Limited had a charge over the said premises, the entire consideration of Rs.72 lacs. was paid by the applicants to the Times Bank Limited on behalf of the company. The conveyance deed dated 30 th August 1999 was also executed by the company in favour of the applicants. 5. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the original petitioner dated 19 th July 1998 was allowed on 7 th March 2003 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Since the company as directed by order dated 7 th March 2003 failed to deposit the amount, by an order dated 3 18 th March 2008, the company came to be wound up and the provisional liquidator was appointed. 6. An appeal was filed against the winding up order dated 18 th March 2008. The said appeal was disposed of in terms of the minutes of the order dated 4 th March 2009. In view of the order passed in terms of the minutes, the order dated 18 th March 2008 was set aside and the order appointing the official liquidator as provisional liquidator was also set aside. The official liquidator stood discharged and the official liquidator was directed to forthwith hand over to the appellants, all the assets, properties, records and documents of the appellant company which were in his possession/charge. 7. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that in view of the order dated 4 th March 2009 passed by the Hon’ble Appeal Court, the order of winding up of the company is set aside and the official liquidator is no longer the liquidator of the said premises. It is therefore submitted that the company application be allowed. 8. The official liquidator has submitted that pursuant to an ad-interim order of this Court dated 17 th December 2004, the official 4 liquidator has already handed over the possession of the said premises to the applicants on an undertaking that they shall not alienate or create any third party interest in respect of the said premises. The official liquidator therefore submits that the said company application has now become infructuous. 9. In my view, from the aforesaid facts, the applicants have established that they are bona-fide purchasers of the said premises and the provisional liquidator could not have taken possession of the said premises which were already conveyed to the applicants by a deed of conveyance dated 30 th August 1999. Even otherwise, as set out above, the winding up order is also set aside and the premises are no longer with the liquidator. 10. The company application is therefore allowed. There will no orders as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]