ComanyAppl.1/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1/07 In S.B. COMPANY APPLICATION NO.25/2000 IN S.B. COMPANY PETITION NO.1/95 Hari Ram & Anr. Vs. OL of M/s. Amfort Agro Finance Ltd. DATE OF ORDER : 01/02/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Rajesh Moondia, for applicants Mr. Amod Kasliwal, for O.L. *** Company Application No.25/2000 in Company Petition No.1/95 was decided by this court on 1st March, 2001. It was observed that applicant Hari Ram & another were shown in the list of debtor and notice was initially served in the office of Official Liquidator for demand of a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @12% per annum dated 24th September, 1999 which was duly served upon them. The notice & postal acknowledgment receipt were also placed on record. Since the present applicant failed to make payment despite notice being served, application was filed by the Official Liquidator u/ss.446 & 447 of Companies Act, 1956. Notices were issued of the aforesaid application, which as per the office report, was issued and duly served upon the present applicant Hari Ram on 12th December, 2000. Since he failed ComanyAppl.1/07 [2] to appear despite service of Company Application No.25/2000, this court passed the order on 1st March, 2001 – operative portion whereof is reproduced as under: “Under these circumstances, this court has no other option but to accept and allow the present application as prayed for and there will be a direction to the Official Liquidator to recover the amount of Rs.3,11,600/- together with the interest @12% namely as on 27.8.1999.” In compliance of order of this court dated 1st March, 2001, Company Execution Petition No.9/04 was filed by Official Liquidator which was admitted on 24th September, 2004 and notices were issued to the present applicant. After the said notice of execution petition was served, the applicant Hari Ram filed present Company Application No.1/07 in which it was specifically alleged that notices were never served upon them issued by this court of Company Application No.25/2000. As such, the order dated 1st March, 2001 deserves to be recalled and the premise on which execution petition which has been filed against them is not maintainable. After notices were issued of the present application, record of Company Application No.25/2000 was also summoned and on its perusal, it has been shown to the counsel for applicant Hari Ram as well. From the record which conspicuously shows about notice ComanyAppl.1/07 [3] being served upon present applicant Hari Ram and office report as per available record cannot be doubted in any manner. Counsel for applicant after being satisfied in regard to notice being served, raised further objection that as per instructions extended to him by his client, infact loan was never disbursed to him. As such, the question of making recovery from him does not arises. Suffice it to say at this stage that at two different stages the present applicant had an opportunity to come out with his defence – at the first stage when O.L. served him notice dated 24th September, 1999 and at a later stage when notices were issued and served upon him of Company Application No.25/2000. Despite the same for the satisfaction of this court, counsel for O.L. has placed xerox copy of documents i.e. loan application form and other documents which show about loan being disbursed to the applicant Hari Ram and in this regard, notice was served upon him for making recovery being a debtor. Since the very premise on which applicant filed the present application about notice not being served, does not hold good on perusal of record. This court does not find any merit in the instant application, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J. FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.1ComAppl2007 1-2.doc