IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.07.2010 C.P.No.19 of 2009 M/s Nikita Media Services ...Petitioner Versus Official Liquidator, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate, with Mr. D.P.Ojha, Official Liquidator. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Rule 9 read with Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for payment of outstanding bills to the petitioner on account of publication of advertisements of various companies alongwith interest. The petitioner is a group of advertising consortium primarily dealing in press and outdoor advertising. At the asking of Mr. Ashish Vajpayee, the then Official Liquidator, the petitioner was assigned the job of publication of notices in various newspapers in respect of sale notices of the properties in possession of the Official Liquidator. Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation got seized of the matter and the publication of advertisements by the petitioner at the instance of Official Liquidator became subject matter of investigation. It is not disputed that the Central Bureau of Investigation has not found any irregularity in the matter of C.P.No.19 of 2009 publication of advertisements by the petitioner at the instance of the then Official Liquidator. This Court on 03.07.2009 passed the following order : “The petitioner seeks release of the payment of outstanding bills for publication of the Advertisements etc. at the instance of the Official Liquidator. Some of the payments appear to have been withheld on account of the pending CBI investigation. The record reveals that the investigation has since been concluded and the allegation of misuse of the official position against the petitioner has not been established. Since the payments were withheld only due to pendency of investigation by the CBI, there can hardly be any legal justification to withhold the payments. However, with a view to enable the Official Liquidator to verify the payable amount at the agreed and/or prevalent rates etc., adjourned to 7.8.2009. Let the needful be done before the adjourned date. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that the petitioner shall appear before the Official Liquidator alongwith the relevant record on 13th and 14th of July, 2009.” In pursuance of such orders, the Official Liquidator has verified the amount payable to the petitioner. It is stated to be Rs.49,57,655/-. However, it is argued by Ms. Divya Sharma that such rates are the card rates and not the publication rates approved by Directorate of Audio Visual Publications (for short ‘DAVP’). The petitioner was assigned the job of publication of notices at the instance of the then Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has verified the publications carried out by the present petitioner. The amount said to be incurred by the petitioner has been verified as Rs.49,57,655/- and is payable to the petitioner. In respect of the liability of payment of the amount over and above the rates approved by DAVP, it is open to the Official Liquidator to take such action against such persons, who are found 2 C.P.No.19 of 2009 responsible for publication of such advertisement at the market rate rather than at the DAVP rates in accordance with law. The Official Liquidator shall release the payment of Rs.49,57,655/- to the petitioner. With the said order, the petition stands disposed of. 01.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3