THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI COMPANY APPEAL No.8 OF 2010 Dated: 30.11.2010 In the matter of Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) And In the matter of M/s. Mamatha Chit Funds (P) Limited (In liqun.) Between : Shaik Anwar Pasha, S/o. Late Sri Kreem Saab, R/o.6-56, Bhavani Nagar, Road No.2, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And M/s. Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited (In liqn.) Rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI COMPANY APPEAL No.8 OF 2010 ORDER : This appeal under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is preferred against the order of the Official Liquidator attached to this Court, dated 10.6.2010. The respondent herein – M/s. Mamatha Chit Funds Private Limited – was directed to be wound up by this Court by order dated 20.03.2002 in C.P.No.13 of 2002. Consequently the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. Thereafter, Official Liquidator filed C.A.Nos.2874 and 2879 of 2003 and Applications 7, 9 and 20 of 2004 seeking a direction to the appellant herein to pay the amounts claimed therein with interest at 12% p.a. The said applications were allowed by this Court by common order dated 1.12.2005 and a decree was granted against the appellant herein along with one Smt. P. Renuka making them jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,800/- with interest specified therein. Questioning the said order, the appellant herein preferred O.S.A.Nos.39 to 43 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 10.7.2007 allowed the appeals and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal by framing appropriate issues. On remand, the said company applications are yet to be heard. While so, the appellant herein made a claim before the Official Liquidator in Form-66 for Rs.4,13,000/- towards his legal fees for conducting cases for the company under liquidation. By letter dated 19.2.2009 the Official Liquidator informed the appellant that his claim for Rs.4,13,000/- was allowed as unsecured debt. The Official Liquidator had also filed C.A.No.780 of 2009 under Section 460 (4) of the Companies Act, 1956 with a prayer to sanction declaration of final dividend to the secured and preferential creditors and to permit the Official Liquidator to pay the dividend during six months period after issuing Form-138 Notices. The certified list of the creditors who submitted their proofs of debts or claims against the company under liquidation was filed by the Official Liquidator in Form- 71 and the same included the name of the appellant herein at Sl.No.527. This Court by order dated 9.7.2009 disposed of the Company Application No.780 of 2009 sanctioning the declaration of final dividend of all the claims included in the Form-71 list, except the appellant herein observing that the claim of the appellant herein was already rejected by this Court in C.A.No.2879 of 2003. Contending that the claim of the appellant was not rejected in C.A.No.2879 of 2003 and that a wrong representation was made by the Official Liquidator before this Court, the appellant made a further claim dated 10.9.2009 before the Official Liquidator requesting to pay the determined amount of Rs.4,13,000/-. In response to the same, the Official Liquidator by letter dated 10.6.2010 informed the appellant that the question of payment of any amounts to him in any form does not arise since his claim was not allowed by this Court in C.A.No.780 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present Company Appeal No.8 of 2010 has been preferred under Rule 164 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The Official Liquidator filed a report stating that out of 525 claims admitted by the Official Liquidator, the claim of the appellant herein was inadvertently admitted basing upon his affidavit filed along with Form No.66. It is further stated that in pursuance of the order by this Court in C.A.No.780 of 2009 dated 9.7.2009 a detailed enquiry was conducted in the office of the Official Liquidator and it was found that there was no order pertaining to the appellant herein and that Form No.66 filed by the appellant did not disclose any material pertaining to his entitlement. It is further stated that the appellant is not entitled to claim any amount against the company under liquidation either towards his commission or advocate fee in the absence of any material proof to substantiate his entitlement for the amount claimed. I have heard Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Anil Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator. The order passed by this Court in C.A.No.780 of 2009 dated 9.7.2009 contained a finding that the Appellant’s claim was liable to be rejected. The said finding recorded by this Court is binding on the Official Liquidator and therefore the Official Liquidator cannot be held to have committed any error in rejecting the appellant’s claim. However it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by this Court in C.A.No.780 of 2009 was factually incorrect and that the Official Liquidator had misrepresented the facts. As noticed above, a clear finding was recorded by this Court while disposing of C.A.No.780 of 2009 that the appellant’s claim was liable to be rejected. In case the appellant is aggrieved by the said finding, it is for him to work out the remedy of appeal or any other remedy available under law. As long as the said finding recorded by this court stands good, there cannot be any direction to the Official Liquidator to act contrary to the said finding. Hence I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Appeal. Accordingly, the Company Appeal is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the appellant to avail the appropriate remedy as available under law against the order dated 9.7.2009 in C.A.No.780 of 2009. No costs _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.11.2010 gbs