1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Application No.1683 of 2008 in Company Petition No.895 of 1998 Rasiklal S. Mardia ..Applicant vs. The Official Liquidator of Amar Dye Chem Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Devanshu Desai for applicant Mr.V.P.Sawant for respondent. O.L.present. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 15 th October, 2009 P.C. 1 This application is filed by the Ex Chairman of the Company in liquidation seeking directions against the persons/entities responsible for the loss caused in view of the thefts of machineries, electrical and other assets including raw material and finished goods, the possession of which was taken from the company by the Official Liquidator as per the inventory 2 report. 2 The property of the respondent company is spread upto 58 acres. The same is full of trees and bushes and there is no proper lighting facilities because of which the property was regularly visited by armed thieves and dacoits who could not be managed/dealt with by M/s Bhagwati Allied Services Ltd. the security agency appointed by the official liquidator. The secured creditors to whom the property is mortgaged were not coming forward to lend cooperation or assistance to the official liquidator. The complaints of thefts and dacoity were brought to the notice of this Court in the year 2004 by none other than the security agency M/s Bhagwati Allied Services Ltd. by filing Company Application Lodging No. 553 of 2004 seeking orders relieving them from guarding the aforesaid properties as they were unable to deal with armed 3 robbers/dacoits and were not getting any cooperation from the police authorities. In view thereof, this Court (Coram: J.N.Patel J.) by its order dated 1 st July 2004 recorded the assurance given by the police officials to post two armed constables at site to prevent such incidents. Despite the aforesaid assurance by the police authorities, it appears that the armed constables were not provided on regular basis because of which the thefts continued to take place. 3 By the said order dated 1 st July 2004 the Official Liquidator was also directed to take certain steps provided the secured creditors were ready to come forward and cooperate with the Liquidator by bearing the necessary expenses. However, according to the Liquidator the secured creditors failed to come forward and bear the expenses. It was further provided in the said order dated 1 st July 2004 that if the secured creditors 4 failed to cooperate with the liquidator, this Court would be constrained to pass an order directing the secured creditors to make their own arrangement to safeguard and protect the properties as no security agency would come forward to protect the property if they failed to get cooperation in the matter and the property would be lost by thefts committed by robbers/dacoits. 4 In view of the above,I pass the following order: i) The Official Liquidator shall first prepare an estimate of loss caused due to thefts. The costs/expenses incurred by the Liquidator to prepare such estimate is undertaken to be borne by the applicant Mr.Rashiklal S.Mardia, Ex Chairman of the company in liquidation, who is present in Court. ii) The Liquidator shall thereafter prepare his report and submit it before the 5 Court within 24 weeks from today setting out therein the estimated loss of property due to such thefts and who according to him is/are responsible for the said loss/theft. The liquidator shall also set out what steps the Liquidator proposes to take against the persons identified by him for being responsible for such thefts/loss. 5 The company application is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)