gopi 1 APP-560-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.560 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.883 OF 2009 AND COMPANY PETITION NO.74 OF 2011 WITH OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR’S REPORT DATED 21-7-2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2463 OF 2011 Mr.Sunil D. Mehta & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. M/s.Girdharilal Agrawal & Co., & Ors..Respondents. Mr. Sampat Mond with Mr. Raju Jain i/b. Khushbu Prabhu for the appellants. Mr. S.B. Bhagwat with Mr. Sandeep Kumbhar for Official Liqudator. Mr. C.S. Balsara with Mr. P.K. Shroff and Mr. Sachin Pandey i/b. M/s.Parimal K. Shroff & Co., for Intervenor. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., AND MRS.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6 September 2011. P.C. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties for some time, we propose to dispose of this appeal with certain directions. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in details leading to the filing of this appeal. gopi 2 APP-560-11 2. The Official Liquidator has been appointed by the Company Court as the provisional Liquidator in view of the default committed by the appellants in carrying out the consent terms and according to the appellants the petitioning creditors have already been paid. The petitioning creditors are now ready and agreeable to have the date of payment extended. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Company Application Nos.251 272 of 2011 are for setting aside the order dated 25 February 2010 appointing provisional Liquidator and for allowing the applicants therein on behalf of the Company as the Ex-Directors of the Company to settle all the dues of creditors under the scheme proposed by the applicants. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, however, on account of the impugned directions given by the learned Company Judge requiring the Official Liquidator to give advertisement in the newspapers and to release the notice of invitation of claims, no other parties would be ready to settle the dues with the applicants of the above Company Applications. It is, therefore, submitted that great prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the impugned directions are implemented and the Company Application Nos.251 and 272 of 2011 are not heard in the meantime. 2. Mr. Balsara, learned Counsel for some of the shareholders opposes the appeal and submits that even for the purposes of settling the dues of creditors the appellants will have to indicate the claims of the creditors and, therefore, the impugned directions may be permitted to be implemented. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the appointment of the Official Liquidator as the gopi 3 APP-560-11 provisional Liquidator has come into effect on account of the operation of the default clause in the consent terms and that the petitioning creditors have already been paid off the amounts as per the consent terms, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:- (i) Advertisement in the newspapers containing the notice of invitation of claims as prayed for in prayer (b) of the Official Liquidator’s report shall be issued and published by the appellants, but the draft notice of such advertisement shall be approved by the Official Liquidator. However, the claims shall be submitted to the office of the Liquidator. (ii) The direction given by the learned Company Judge to extend the time given to the Official Liquidator for adjudicating the claims received by the Official Liquidator is not disturbed and it will be open to the Official Liquidator to call for further proof from the respective claimants. (iii) The order of the learned Company Judge ratifying the action of the Official Liquidator in appointing M/s.S.M. Pradhan & Co., Chartered Accountants and to permit the Official Liquidator to pay the professional fee to the Chartered Accountants are not disturbed. (iv) Even when the aforesaid directions are implemented the learned Company Court is not prevented from hearing and gopi 4 APP-560-11 deciding the Company Application Nos.251 and 272 of 2011 in Company Petition No.883 of 2009. The Company Applications shall be heard and decided on their own merits and we may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on the merits of such applications. The learned Company Judge is requested to hear and decide the above mentioned Company Applications as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months. (v) It will be open to the applicants of the other Company Applications to request the learned Company Judge to take up those Company Applications also. (vi) The Appeal and Notice of Motion are accordingly disposed of. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)