HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO And HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD O.S.A.No.19 of 2010 Date: 30-04-2011 Between: Thomas Joseph ……… Appellant And Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P. and others ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD O.S.A.No.19 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) This Appeal is being filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the appellant who is aggrieved against the orders of the learned single Judge in Company Appeal No.31 of 2009, dated 19-04-2010 dismissing the said appeal which in turn was filed as against the orders of identification, dated 19-08-2009 in R.C.C.No.1/97/592 passed by the Official Liquidator on the claim made by the appellant. Heard Sri P. Bhaskara Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator and Sri S. Sriram Reddy and Sri T. Sharath, other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents. The short question which at the instance of the appellant arises is as to whether the appellant is entitled for the claims set forth as against the company in respect of the twin aspects under two heads firstly, Rs.23,00,000/- towards the cost of the machinery and secondly, Rs.4,00,000/- paid as upfront money to APIDC and APSFC. At the outset, it is to be seen that both the Official Liquidator and the learned single Judge rejected the claims holding specifically that the appellant is not entitled thereto on the facts and the material as set forth from both sides. In fact, the finding, at both levels, is to the effect that the appellant has hopelessly failed to establish the claim by any cogent evidence and the material in support thereof and therefore, the question of any entitlement does not arise. Prima facie, these findings, on both the counts, are that of fact which normally could not be interdicted in this appeal arising under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent except under substantial questions of law or any perversity against such finding. However, it is to be seen, on a comparative consideration of the memorandum of grounds before the learned single Judge and also in this appeal and perusal thereon, that no question of law is addressed nor any perversity is attributed against those findings. That apart, even during the course of arguments, nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel to show any such illegality to warrant interference in those findings. Now coming back to the facts on hand, the company namely M/s. Satya Sai Polymers Ltd is a registered one under the provisions of the Companies Act and having regard to its heavy loss in the year 1994, a consortium meeting was held on 17-02-1994 and the appellant was sought to be inducted as Managing Director of the company with additional investment to revive the unit subject to the approval of the APIDC and APSFC. The decisions of the consortium meeting held on 17-02-1994, which has been attended by the appellant, read as follows: 1. Sri Thomas Joseph to submit a detailed revised proposal envisaging the quantum of investment required for repairs and renovation of machinery, margins money for working capital, payment of statutory dues, production schedule, marketing of the product profitability statement etc. to the institutions within one week. 2. APIDC is agreeable for induction of Sri Thomas Joseph with additional investment to revive the unit. However, the new entrant have to seek the approval of APSFC for their induction with a token payment of Rs.2.00 lakhs each to APIDC & APSFC and the operations may be reviewed in August, ’94 by which time the unit is expected to be fully operational. 3. The reliefs & concession will be extended as per norms of institutions. Subsequently, there have been several chequred events including the reference to the BIFR which, as per its order, dated 27- 05-1996, recommended for winding up of the company and there has been a seizure of the premises by APSFC on 28-06-1996. Accordingly, this Court as per the order in R.C.C.No.1 of 1997, dated 03-07-1997 directed the winding up of the company and appointed the Official Liquidator. The appellant filed an application in C.A.No.121 of 1998 seeking directions to the Official Liquidator to return the additional machinery brought by him into the company and also return of Rs.2.00 lakhs each paid to APIDC and APSFC. The said application was dismissed as per the orders, dated 22-12-1999. Thereupon, an appeal was filed by the appellant in O.S.A.No.14 of 2000 and it was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court as per the orders, dated 14-02-2001 with certain modifications allowing the machinery to be sold and sale proceedings to be kept in suspense account and with further directions. Hence, subsequently, in the process, the appellant set forth his twin claims in Form No.66. The Official Liquidator, on examining the claims, partly admitted the amount to an extent of Rs.13,59,000/- as unsecured loan while rejecting the rest of the claim as per the orders, dated 19-08-2009. Later the Official Liquidator submitted a report in OLR No.449 of 2009 reiterating the proceedings, dated 19-08-2009. It is against these proceedings, dated 19-08-2009, the appellant filed the appeal before the learned single Judge. At the time of hearing, apart from making submissions, further material in the form of affidavits has been filed both by the respondents as well as by the appellant. Taking into consideration the factum of the presence of the appellant himself in the consortium meeting held on 17-02-1994 and the agreed terms, he cannot go back and further it was the finding that the appellant could not produce any bills with regard to machinery brought into company in liquidation as could be evident from the report of the Chartered Accountants and there being no evidence that the appellant brought the machinery fabricated by him in his own unit to the company and therefore, the valuation was done by the Official Liquidator at Rs.13,59,000/- as unsecured loan. It was held that there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Official Liquidator in rejecting the balance claim. Even in this appeal, as already stated above, nothing much nor in addition is pointed out to show as to how the appellant could substantiate his claim. Accordingly, it has to be held that in view of the finding of fact as arrived at by the Official Liquidator primarily and as confirmed by the learned single Judge, which is a concurrent one, no question arises nor any case has been made out to warrant interference. Hence, we hold that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 30-04-2011 YCR