IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.561 OF 1993 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.41 OF 1986 Godfrey Philips India Ltd. ...Petitioner And The Official Liquidator ...Applicant V/s. Associated Industries (Assam) ...Respondent ...... Mr.S.Ramakantha, Dy.Official Liquidator is present. None for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 10, 2008. MARCH 10, 2008. MARCH 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None appears for the Respondent. The Company has already been ordered to be wound-up in terms of order dated 26th April 1989. This Application has been instituted thereafter for the reliefs claimed in terms of prayer clause (a) by the Official Liquidator against the Respondent Company. When this Application was listed on the : 2 : earlier occasion in September 1994 and again in January 1997 and in 1998, representation was made to the Court that the BIFR proceedings in respect of Respondent Company are pending and as a result, hearing of the application was deferred. Obviously, the BIFR proceedings must have been finally disposed of by now. In any case, there is nothing on record to suggest that BIFR proceedings are still pending against the Respondent Company. 2. The Respondent has filed reply affidavit. It is mere denial of liability to pay the amount as claimed by the Official Liquidator. In my opinion, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the record maintained by the Official Liquidator which establishes the fact that the stated amount is and was payable to the Official Liquidator by the Respondent. 3. The Respondent has also disputed the liability on the assertion that all mills of NTC are maintaining one consolidated account of the dealings in the name of the Petitioner from its Head Office instead of individual mill-wise. : 3 : Therefore, the claim could not be bifurcated in the manner suggested by the Official Liquidator. The Respondent has then asserted that in fact the Company in liquidation owes certain amounts to the Respondent and would prove the counter claim to recover the balance amount from the Company. However, the Respondent has not made any attempt to make good this stand. 4. As aforesaid, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand taken by the Official Liquidator about the liability of the Respondent. It is nobody’s case that any Official in the Office of the Official Liquidator was personally interested or biased against the Respondent. Taking overall view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the stand taken by the Respondent is unstatable. 5. Accordingly, this Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Application disposed of accordingly. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.