IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA COMPANY PETITION NO. 26 OF 2010 PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR (SMT. MEERA D. PATIL) ... Petitioner Versus M/S. ANDERSON MARINE PVT. LTD AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Shri. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Official Liquidator present. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK, J. Date:- 3rd September, 2010 P.C. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 ( directors of respondent no.1 ) to furnish information to the respondent no.5 - the official liquidator. In my view, the petition is misconceived. The respondent No.1 company is ordered to be wound up. According to the petitioner, it has a claim against the respondent No.1 company. However, the said claim has not been shown in the statement filed by the respondents under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956. It has therefore, prayed for a direction that the respondents be directed to show the claim of the petitioner by furnishing the requisite information to the liquidator. The respondents do not admit the claim of the petitioner. Obviously, the respondents would not show any claim of the petitioner in their statement made under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 in asmuch as showing the claim in the statement would amount to admission of the claim. It is open for the petitioner to make the claim before the liquidator and to establish it. No order directing the respondents to file a statement showing the claim which is disputed by them. In the circumstances, Company Petition is rejected. D. G. KARNIK, J. at*