1 srk app-149-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.149 OF 2011 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.347 OF 2004 Mahakali Flyover Company Limited. ... Appellant Versus Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India, a successor to the Unit Trust of India and another. ... Respondents Mr. M.P.S. Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S. Kulkarni, Mr. Kapil Moye, Mr. Vinayak Vengurlekar i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Bhagwat for respondent No.2. Ms. Rajni Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr. Darshan R. Mehta and Ms. Vinita Hombalkar i/by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Friday, February 25, 2011 P .C. Notice, returnable forthwith. 2. M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. waive service of notice for respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep Bhagwat, advocate waives service of notice for respondent No.2. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2 srk app-149-11.sxw 4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th February, 2011 of the learned Company Judge in Company Application No.585 of 2010 by which the learned Company Judge has observed that the Official Liquidator is at liberty to invite the claims by giving appropriate notice in accordance with the Companies Act and the Rules. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the above company application has been taken out for recalling the ex-parte order of winding up against the appellant on 21st July, 2010. The name of the appellant's advocate was not mentioned at the cause list as a result whereof the appellant's advocate did not appear in Court on 21st July, 2010. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 (petitioning creditor) does not dispute the fact that her client and the appellant are negotiating a settlement but submits that the impugned order of the learned trial Judge granting liberty to the Official Liquidator to invite claims by giving appropriate notice in accordance with the Companies Act and Rules by itself does not prejudice the appellant's case. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 further states that respondent No.1 has no objection to the DRAT deciding appeal No. 113 of 2005 as respondent No.1 also is interested in the same being decided by DRAT and the appellant appearing in the appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the Official Liquidator states that the advertisement has already been issued on 23rd February, 2011 in view of the liberty granted by the learned Company Judge. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that winding up order was passed by the Company Court on 21st July, 2010 when admittedly, the name of the learned advocate for the appellant 3 srk app-149-11.sxw (respondent in the winding up petition) was not shown in the cause list, we grant ad-interim stay of the order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by the Company Court in Company Petition No. 347 of 2004 till the Company Court hears Company Application No.585 of 2010. 9. It is further clarified that till further orders, the present appellant shall not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right in respect of its immovable property. In other words, this direction shall also operate till disposal of Company Application No.585 of 2010. 10. We also make it clear that in view of the stay of the order dated 21st July, 2010 of the Company Court in Company Petition No.347 of 2004, the appellant is at liberty to proceed with the hearing of Appeal No.113 of 2005 and that the DRAT shall also proceed to hear and decide the appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings before the Company Court. It is further clarified that since the Official Liquidator has already issued the advertisement on 23rd February, 2011 and the claims are invited by 15th March, 2011, the Official Liquidator shall receive the claims without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant and without conferring any right on any party. Appeal is accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.