1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. COMPANY APPLN.NO.136 OF 2007 IN C.A.L.NO.5/2006. (RAMA ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR & OTH..) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.C.Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Applicant. Official Liquidator in person. Shri S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and Official Liquidator. 2. Bid of the applicant was accepted and sale was confirmed on 11.08.2005 on deposit of Rs.9,68,00,000/- by the applicant. On 20.08.2005 the property was also delivered to the applicant. The applicant started looking 2 after the property by engaging the services of Security Agents. The sale in favour of the applicant was, however, cancelled. Hence, on 13.01.2006 he applied for withdrawal of the amount deposited by him. On 25.07.2006 the Official Liquidator gave his consent for withdrawal and accordingly, on the same day, order was passed for refunding the amount to the applicant. The entire amount of Rs.9,68,00,000/- deposited by the applicant was then refunded to him. 3. Now, the applicant claims interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount for the period from 11.08.2005 to August, 2006. In addition to the interest he also claims incidental expenditure amounting to Rs.2,24,278/- on account of security charges. 4. The Official Liquidator has no objection to pay interest, whatever has been accrued to him, during this period. So also he has no objection for payment of Rs. 3 2,24,278/- towards security charges. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, presses for interest at higher rate. 5. It may be noted that even in the past, sales in favour of others were cancelled on two occasions and the amount deposited by the auction purchasers was refunded to them along with interest accrued to the Official Liquidator. We see no reason to depart from this practice, in case of the present applicant. In our view, it is most expedient and appropriate to grant interest which is accrued to the Official Liquidator, because the Official Liquidator is not entitled to retain the same. 6. We, therefore, direct the Official Liquidator to pay the accrued interest on the amount of Rs.9,68,00,000/- from 11.08.2005 till 17.08.2006 and Rs.2,24,278/- towards security charges to the applicant within two weeks. 4 7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2-I.D.B.I. Bank, which is a secured creditor, objects to the payment of interest and security charges. However, we see no substance in the said objection and hence, the same is rejected. 8. The application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE RR.