((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.221 OF 2001 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.416 OF 1997 Simshah Associates and Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd. Applicant versus Official Liquidator of M/s.Atash Industries (I) Ltd. and another Respondents Chirag Balsara with Nehal Gada with Yogini Gada i/by M/s.Harakchand & Co. for applicant. Nilesh Das - Noticee. Tushar Goradia for respondent no.2. S.Ramakanta, Dy.O.L.present. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 14th March 2008 PC : 1. By this application direction is sought against the Official Liquidator to take possession of the premises of second floor admeasuring 3,500 sq.ft. in the building known as Buna Vista situate at Worli, Mumbai from respondent no.2 in terms of order dated 15th February 2000 passed in Company Petition No.416 ((-2-)) MST of 1997. Further incidental reliefs are claimed by the applicant. 2. However, the principal question that needs to be considered is whether the company is in lawful possession of the disputed premises. From the averments in the application it transpires that the respondent no.2 was put in possession of the premises presumably by the company. However, the respondent no.2 appeared before this Court on 11th August 2005 and informed the Court that he was no longer in possession of the disputed property. That fact is recorded in order dated 11th August 2005. 3. The representative of Official Liquidator on the basis of record available with him asserts that the Official Liquidator has not taken over possession of the disputed premises so far. In the mean time, however, third party claims to have been put in possession of the disputed premises, namely, Shailendra Singh, by M/s.Blue Fox Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Having regard to this development coupled with the fact that the Official Liquidator is not in possession of the disputed premises and that the licence period in relation to the said premises given to the ((-3-)) MST company has expired long back, it is not possible to examine the controversy raised by the applicant in the present application. For, that would inevitably require the Court to adjudicate the right, title and interest of the respective parties. 4. Suffice it to observe that the respondent company in liquidation was stated to be in occupation of the disputed premises only in terms of leave and license agreement, the period whereof has already expired long back. However, as aforesaid, third party claims to have been put in possession of the disputed premises in his own rights. Those are matters which will have to be examined in appropriate proceedings, if resorted to by the applicant before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Those disputes cannot be resolved in the present application before the Company Court. Insofar as said premises, as the third party is in possession of the premises, the Official Liquidator is not in a position to assert that the premises would be required for the purpose of winding-up of the respondent company. For all these reasons, the application is disposed off with liberty to the applicant as aforesaid. ((-4-)) MST 5. It is, however, made clear that the Official Liquidator may examine the question of recovery of security deposit amount from the applicant which was given by the company at the relevant time under agreement dated 5th March 1987 much before the winding-up order was passed. That aspect will be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)