1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR OLR NO. 59 OF 2008 IN CAL NO. 161 OF 2003 IN CMP 5/1997 (Official Liquidator vs. Mr. Ganpat Bapurao Kadam) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 16, 2009. Heard Mrs. Wandile, learned counsel for the Official Liquidator. The matter is being adjourned since long because this Court has found the report submitted by the Official Liquidator to be misleading. Today, the Official Liquidator is being assisted by the advocate. The argument is if the amount of expenditure mentioned in the possession receipt dated 14.7.1995 is taken into account, the sale consideration is fully paid. Upon enquiry, it is being stated that as per agreement for sale, the expenditure is over and above the sale consideration. There is no explanation about the payments reflected in the agreement for sale. The agreement specifically shows that amount of Rs.62,500/- was paid on 14.7.1995 and then there is one more payment of 2 Rs.13,000/-. Both these payments are not appearing in three receipts to which the attention of this Court is invited i.e. possession receipt dated 14.7.1995, receipt dated 16.1.1995 and another receipt signed by one A.V. Chalke, as Director for Rs.87,000/-. The Official Liquidator states that he is not in a position to explain these payments. Thus, there are no accounts or records with Official Liquidator in this connection. The first payment of Rs.1,72,000/- is in cash. I find it difficult to accept pursis dated 5.9.2008 vide Stamp No.10186 of 2008 of the Official Liquidator and hold that non-applicant has paid full sale consideration. I fail to understand as to why the report came to be filed. The report is, therefore, rejected. O.L.R. No. 59 of 2008 is thus rejected with cost of Rs.5,000/- to High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur. JUDGE *GS.