1 ca10-06.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2006 DCM Daewoo Motors Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners and Goyal M.G.Gases Ltd. .. Applicants Versus C.M.Daewoo Motors Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sargesh i/b. Mulani & Co. for applicants Mr.Nandu Pawar for respondent No.3 Mr.N.Chinnachary Dy.O.L. Ms.Rupa Sutar, Asstt. O.L. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 13th October 2011. P.C.: 1] At the hearing of this application it is conceded by the applicants' Advocate that the dispute raised by him cannot be made the subject matter of the instant proceedings and he will have to institute independent proceedings and seek such relief therein as are permissible in law. However, it is stated that since the order dated 10th August 2006 passed in this company application came to be set aside by the Division Bench vide its order dated 25th July 2007 in Appeal Lodging No.1063 of 2006, there is an apprehension that as the Provisional Liquidator was appointed, the proceedings at the instance of the applicant may not be entertained. 2 ca10-06.doc 2] He, therefore, seeks clarification to the effect that the appointment of Provisional Liquidator shall not affect his legal rights and remedies. 3] To my mind, when I passed an order on 10th August 2006 in this application I had elaborately dealt with the issue and for the benefit of the applicant clarified, despite dismissing the company application, that the same would not prevent the applicant from initiating appropriate proceedings against the Official Liquidator as also the second respondent for obtaining reliefs for breach of terms and conditions of the agreement and power of attorneys in their favour. Dismissal of this application was without prejudice to the rights and contentions. Needless, therefore, to state that when the said clarification was issued, there was enough protection for the applicant. 4] Now the same clarification is sought again and it is requested that if the clarification as sought is issued, the applicants would not press this company application. 5] Having perused the earlier orders and hearing the Counsel for applicant, I am satisfied that even if this company application is dismissed, the applicants are not prevented from initiating appropriate proceedings against the lessees so also the second respondent and obtaining therein such reliefs as are permissible in law, including on the basis that there is breach of terms and 3 ca10-06.doc conditions of the agreement and power of attorney. Such proceedings, if initiated, will be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the appointment of provisional liquidator in the present proceedings. The company application is, therefore, disposed of with this clarification, in the light of the statement made by the applicants' Counsel. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)