IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Company Appeal (DB) No.4 of 2009 The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna, through its Managing Director. …Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. Jagdish Prasad Son of Late Jagarnath Parasad C/o Sri Anil Kumar Tiwary, Advocate, Jamuna Raj Niwas, K. M. Singh Lane, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. 2. Official Liquidator, Mourya Complex, Police Station- Kotwali, District-Patna. …Petitioner/Respondents ----------- 7/ 02.07.2009 Heard the parties. We have carefully gone through the order of the Company Judge under appeal and specially, the findings in paragraph 20, 21, and 22 which were sought to be assailed before us. The main findings which were challenged by the appellant were that remaining money to be paid to the BICICO by the Ex-Management/Lessor of the Company under OTS scheme could not be paid due to absence of any instructions from the BICICO and also due to the fact that no order was passed in I.A. No.1118 of 2007 preferred by BICICO before the Company Judge. An attempt was also made to assail the finding/observation of the Company Judge that the delay caused in the matter was due to BICICO and not due to Ex-Management/Lessor of the Company, who was always prepared to pay the remaining dues. In order to appreciate the aforesaid challenge on behalf of the appellant, we have gone through the contents of the I.A. No.1118 of 2007 filed by BICICO in the month of February, 2007, as well as through the contents of I.A. No.3641 of 2008 and 6652 of 2008 filed by the Ex-Management/Lessor of the Company and BICICO respectively. The contents of I.A. No.1118 of 2007 clearly show that - 2 - BICICO was labouring under the impression that even after accepting 10% of the dues payable under OTS, it could not complete the transaction and accept the remaining dues unless it obtained orders of the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 10 of 1996. The acceptance of 10% money offered by the Ex-Management/ Lessor of the Company through a letter dated 09.11.2006 obliged the BICICO to accept the remaining amount for which the period could be between 6- 12 months. From the contents of Annexures to I.A.3641 of 2008, it is clear that the Ex-Management/Lessor of the Company was willing to pay the balance dues and ultimately, it prepared a banker’s cheque dated 17.6.2008 for an amount of Rs.55,20,600/- and sought directions from the Company Judge so that BICICO may accept the remaining dues. We find that BICICO was labouring under wrong impression that it could not accept the remaining dues under the OTS scheme without the order of the Company Judge. The pendency of I.A. No.1118 of 2007 at the instance of the BICICO caused delay and the Company Judge has come to the right conclusion and has rightly held that BICICO, in the facts of the case, is bound to honour the OTS Scheme of 2006, and accept the dues which remained unpaid in spite of banker’s cheque prepared by the Ex-Management/ Lessor of the company in the year 2008. The letters annexed with I.A. No.3641 of 2008 show that the Ex-Management/ Lessor of the Company was ready to pay the remaining dues before the expiry of twelve months from 9.11.2006, Annexure-7 to the Company Appeal. - 3 - In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. The time frame for payment of the remaining dues as indicated by the Company Judge in the order under appeal shall begin to run from today and parties shall be bound to act accordingly. JA/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Anjana Prakash, J.)