1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY APPLICATION NO.771 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.628 OF 2008. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Maingi. ..Petitioner. vs. The Official Liquidator of M/s.Geeta Marine Service Ltd. .. Respondent. And Mr. Dinesh Chandra Maingi. ..Applicant (Org. Petitioner). .... Mr. Varghese Joseph, i/b. M/s. Joseph & Asso., for Applicant. Deputy Official Liquidator, present. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH AUGUST 2009. P.C. The application is under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant is seeking leave to file a suit against the company (in liquidation). The company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 19 th March 2009 in a petition filed by the applicant himself. The learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that when the order admitting the company petition was passed on 23 rd October 2008, the petitioner therein (applicant herein) 2 was allowed to pursue such other remedy for recovery of further or additional amount before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. I have gone through the order dated 23 rd October 2008. By that order, the admission of the company petition was conditional. The respondent company was given an opportunity to deposit an amount of Rs.95,22,693/- within six weeks from the date of the order failing which the company petition was to stand admitted without further reference to Court. It was also provided that if the respondent deposits the amount as directed, the petitioner will be free to withdraw the same and the petition would stand disposed of and the petitioner would be entitled to pursue such other remedy for recovery of further or additional amount before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The respondent company failed to deposit the amount as directed and the company came to be wound up by an order dated 19 th March 2009. The petitioner (present applicant) in his present application cannot contend that he is entitled to leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, since in the order dated 23 rd 3 October 2008, this Court has recorded that he would be entitled to pursue other remedy for recovery of further/ additional amount before the Court of competent jurisdiction. That entitlement would have arisen if the respondent company had deposited the amount as directed and the company petition disposed of. In the instant case, the applicant will have to file his claim before the Official Liquidator who would adjudicate the same as per law. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant now contends that the applicant wants to file a suit on the personal guarantee executed by a Director of the company. That would be a separate and independent cause of action arising in favour of the applicant on the basis of the guarantee document to which the company (in liquidation) is not a party and the applicant is entitled to file a suit against the guarantor for which no leave is required. 5. For the aforestated reasons, company application is dismissed. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]