THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI COMPANY APPEAL No.22 OF 2010 IN R.C.C.No.13 of 2000 Dated: 02.02.2011 Between: M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Limited ..... Appellant AND The Official Liquidator .....Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI COMPANY APPEAL No.22 OF 2010 IN R.C.C.No.13 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 against the order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the Official Liquidator attached to this Court representing M/s. Reil Products Limited. M/s. Reil Products Limited was directed to be wound up by this Court by order dated 30.10.2000 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as its liquidator. Pursuant thereto, having taken possession of the land and buildings, plant and machinery and other movable assets of the company in liquidation, had invited claims from the creditors of the company in terms of the order passed by this Court in Company Application No.1861 of 2004 dated 14.10.2004. In the notifications published in the newspapers, the last date for receipt of claims was mentioned as 13.12.2004. The appellant herein filed Company Application No.1437 of 2008 before this Court to condone the delay of 1390 days in filing its claim before the Official Liquidator and seeking a direction to adjudicate its claim. The said application was allowed by this Court by order dated 20.01.2009 with a direction to the Official Liquidator to entertain and adjudicate the claim of the appellant in accordance with law. Accordingly, having considered the appellant’s claim for rents allegedly due under the agreement dated 25.03.1994 entered between the appellant and the company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator passed an order dated 01.09.2010 admitting the appellant’s claim to the extent of Rs.34,29,281.17 paise as an unsecured debt. However, the balance claim of Rs.3,34,98,774.83 paise. was rejected. Against the said order passed by the Official Liquidator dated 01.09.2010, the present appeal has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri M.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel representing the Official Liquidator and perused material available on record including the report filed by the Official Liquidator vide O.L.R.No.479 of 2010. A perusal of the order under appeal shows that the appellant’s claim to the extent of Rs.3,34,98,774.83 paise. was rejected mainly on the ground that the appellant had not adduced any evidence to the effect that the company in liquidation was bound to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. Thus, the interest on the amounts due was awarded at the rate of 18% per annum. The specific case of the appellant is that the agreement itself provided for interest at the rate of 36% per annum. However, it appears that the Official Liquidator had not taken into consideration the said plea. Similarly the appellant claims that it is entitled to the lease amounts from 12.05.1997 up to 12.06.2001. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that satisfactory evidence is available to substantiate the said claim and had the Official Liquidator provided an opportunity, the same would have been produced by the appellant. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of the appellant, I deem it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the appellant to submit the further evidence before the Official Liquidator to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.09.2010 is hereby set aside and the Appeal is allowed with a direction to the Official Liquidator to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence to substantiate its claim. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date : 02.02.2011 Ivd