- (1.) The Court : In view of the good grounds shown, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned and the appeal is entertained to be heard on merits. Prima facie, there appears to be a series of errors by the Court resulting in a rather embarrassing situation. Company Bells Control Limited was recommended to be wound up by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 in 2007, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in 2011. However, the matter may not have been brought to the notice of the company Court, and it is not surprising since such things are known to happen in the company department. The Registrar or the principal officer in the company department will file a report to indicate how and when the matter was brought to the notice of the company Court and what orders were passed on such matter. Such report should be filed by the time the matter appears next a week hence. Since the recommendation of the BIFR as affirmed by the AAIFR had not been acted upon by this Court, the appellant herein applied for the company to be wound up. On such application, the company was directed to be wound up by an order of January 16, 2017, without any notice being issued to the company, if it existed, or to its known or erstwhile directors or contributories or any creditor. A contributory applied for the order of winding-up to be set aside. On such application, an order was made on April 17, 2017 requiring the official liquidator to only be in symbolic possession of the assets and effects of the company. The company was also restrained from transferring or encumbering or parting with possession or anyway dealing with its fixed assets till the disposal of the application. The relevant application was again taken up on May 17, 2017. The official liquidator submitted before the company Court that the official liquidator did not know to whom he should deliver back possession of the assets of the company (in liquidation). The order dated May 17, 2017 directed the official liquidator to make an inventory of all the occupants at the registered office and other establishments of the company before relinquishing physical possession upon ensuring that there was no change in the occupancy status. The first respondent herein claims to have obtained possession of the registered office of the company (in liquidation) at 21, Camac Street, 11th floor, Kolkata 700 016 on June 5, 2017. Since the first respondent asserts merely as a contributory of the company (in liquidation), the assets of the company (in liquidation) could not have been made over to such person. Accordingly, the official liquidator is directed to forthwith retain possession of all assets and properties of the company (in liquidation) in the same manner as subsisted immediately prior to the order dated May 17, 2017 being made. The official liquidator will make an inventory and compare it to the inventory that must have been prepared by the official liquidator at the time of making over possession of the registered office or any other asset of the company (in liquidation) to the first respondent contributory. The official liquidator should also take possession of all other assets and properties of the company (in liquidation) and the first respondent contributory should aid the official liquidator in such regard. The first respondent will file an affidavit on the returnable date indicating the identity and addresses of the persons in actual control of the company prior to its liquidation and at the time that it functioned. Necessary records pertaining to the proceedings before the BIFR, which may reveal the identity of the management of the company, may also be produced. ACO No.85 of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs. APO No.370 of 2017 will appear a week hence. ;