1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.680 of 2006 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.545 OF 2006 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.141 OF 1989 Lila Filomena Braganza. ...Appellant vs. 1.Official Liquidator High Court, Bombay, & ors. ...Respondents --- Dr.Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate with Mr.C.S.Balsara i/b. M/s.Madekar & Co., for Appellant. Mr.Rajeev Ravi i/b. M/s.Bilawala & Co., for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,JJ. DATED: 9th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Company Application no.545 of 2006 dated 11th 2 August,2006. The directions are in relation to the land which was claimed to be the property of the Company under liquidation because of preliminary decree passed on 27.2.1979 and 2.3.1979 in Suit no.937 of 1974. By our order passed today i.e. 9.6.2010 in Appeal no.287 of 2009, we have set aside that preliminary decree. As the preliminary decree is set aside, the company no longer can claim that there is any order in their favour declaring that they have any interest in the immovable property. In this view of the matter therefore, the order which is impugned in this appeal will have to be set aside. Appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the appeal is set aside. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J.) ...