- (1.) In view of the good grounds shown, the marginal delay of about 27 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
(2.) The erstwhile promoters of the company are not here to resist the appeal, but the official liquidator is; and by the look of things, the official liquidator attempts to do a better job than the erstwhile promoters of the company could have done. To boot, the Court is reminded that the appeal is delayed. The overwhelming impression that the Court gets is that the official liquidator and his office have probably been won over by the erstwhile promoters of the company and there is complete paralysis on the official liquidator's part to retrieve the assets of the company in liquidation, proceed against the recalcitrant erstwhile promoters of the company or settle the dues of the worthy creditors, including the many employees who have remained unpaid. Judicial notice must also be taken of the extent of pilferage from the manufacturing facilities of the company in liquidation. Surely, such actions would have been impossible if the official liquidator's office had been diligent.
(3.) The appeal is directed against an innocuous order on a complaint which has been mechanically lodged by the official liquidator to give the Company Court an impression that it is pursuing the matter pertaining to the company in liquidation. However, no statement of affairs has yet been obtained and considering the extent of the fraudulent transactions indulged in by the erstwhile promoters of the company as evident from previous orders of the Company Court that have attained finality, the conduct of the official liquidator and its office is baffling.;