-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2010 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2009 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1067 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 743 OF 1990 WITH O.L. REPORT NO. 203/2008 DATED 21ST JULY, 2008 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... Appellant vs. The Official Liquidator and others ... Respondents Dr. Birendra Saraf with Mr. Nikhil Rajani, instructed by V. Dehspande & Co., for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Bhagwat, Official Liquidator, respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Thakkar, instructed by Pragna Thakkar & Co., for respondent No.2. Mr. Arun Siwach with Mr. Aditya Mehta, instructed by A. Mangaldas & S.A. , for respondent No.5. Mr. Anirudha Lad, instructed by Intra Legal, for respondent No.6. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Simil Purohit, Mr. Vinod Kothari and Mr. Sahil Sayed, instructed by M/s. Apex Law Partners, for respondent No. 6A. Mr. S.K. Chari, instructed by M.V. Kini & Company, for respondent No.7. Mr. N.M. Ganguli for respondent No.8. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 09, 2010. P.C. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Bank has challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge in Company Application No. 540 of 2009 in -2- Company Petition No. 743 of 1990 in Official Liquidator’s Report No. 203 of 2008. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge, in our view, has passed an innocuous order by which the Official Liquidator was directed to file his report after disposing of all the assets of the Company in liquidation and after realising the sale proceeds. Such report was ordered to be placed before the Court for necessary directions. 2. The grievance on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant is that considerable time would be consumed in the matter of selling the property of the Company in liquidation as there are large scale encroachments over the property in question. It is submitted by Mr. Saraf that the learned Judge should not have disposed of the Company Application but should have adjudicated the same on merits. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter. In our view, the learned single Judge has passed an equitable order. It may be true, as argued by Mr. Saraf, that the sale of the property may take very long time as there are encroachments over the land in question. Mr. Saraf has submitted that some of the Banks have already taken money over and above their entitlement. He submitted that the said Banks may be asked to re-deposit the said amount. In our view, it is not necessary to give any such directions at this stage as the learned single Judge has already directed the Official Liquidator to -3- sell the property after removing all the encroachments by taking expeditious proceedings in this behalf . The learned single Judge has also considered the undertaking given by the concerned Banks to bring back the amount, if so directed by the Court. In view of the same, no directions are now required to be given as prayed for by Mr. Saraf by asking the Banks to re-deposit the amount. In view of the same, no directions are required to be given as prayed for by Mr. Saraf. In case the sale of the property in question is not possible for a long period and at least for a period of one year from today, it will be open to the Applicant Bank to file appropriate Company Application as it deems fit in accordance with law. 4. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of in view of what is stated above. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.