1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.974 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.228 of 1990 Amey Marketing Syndicate, Pune. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shuraguwa Industries Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. And K.Mahadeo & Co. Pvt.Ltd. ..Applicant. V/s Official Liquidator & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Pradip Kadam for applicant. Mr.R.Jaisinghani i/b. J.D’Silva for respondent. Mr.Piyush Shah, for org.Petitioner. Mr.P.Ramarao, O.L. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties including the Official Liquidator. 2. In so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, in my opinion, the same is ill-advised. This is so because, it is not in dispute that the Court Receiver has been appointed initially by this Court in the 2 Suit filed by the Central Bank of India, who claims to be secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation. The Court Receiver has been continued even by the DRT. The Court Receiver has already taken over possession of the suit plot in terms of the Order passed by the Court in those proceedings. The Official Liquidator plainly accepts that as the possession has already been taken over by the Court Receiver, the Official Liquidator is not in a position to take over the possession of the self same suit property and has not done so till now. 3. Suffice it to observe that if at all the Applicants are keen on pursuing their remedy in terms of prayer clause (a), they will have to move the appropriate court, which application will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. Indeed, the Applicants will have to implead the Official Liquidator as party to the proposed proceedings for relief of possession of the suit plot in terms of this order. Prayer clause (a) is accordingly disposed of on the above basis. 4. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, although this relief is opposed by the Counsel, claiming to be appearing for the ex-director, in my 3 opinion, in the interest of justice, the Applicants are entitled to pursue its remedy for possession of the suit plot before the Small Causes Court on its own merits in the suit being T.E.& R. Suit No.2/2/2006. Accordingly, relief in terms of the prayer clause(b) as prayed for is granted on condition that the Applicants shall pay costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to the Official Liquidator within two weeks from today, which amount will be remitted to the company account. 5. It is made clear that payment of cost is condition precedent for granting relief in terms of prayer clause (b). If cost is not paid in time, the Office to proceed on the assumption that the Application is dismissed for non-prosecution. 6. Application disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)