- (1.) THE Kaithal Cotton and General Mills Co. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up. Various claimants preferred their claims before the official liquidator in response to the notice issued under Rule 148 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules " ). Smt. Champa Vati Latka, Shri I. C. Latka and the firm, Seth Munna Lal Ishwar Chander through Shri Ishwar Chander Latka, filed different claims. The official liquidator asked them to prove their claims but they were unable to prove the claims. Consequently, the official liquidator vide his order dated August 1, 1974, rejected the claim of Shri I. C. Latka, and as regards the claims of firm Seth Munna Lal Ishwar Chander and Smt. Champa Vati Latka, the same were partly accepted and partly rejected. This order of the official liquidator was not appealed against as the appeal is provided under Rule 164 of the Rules. The said three claimants approached this court by way of three claim petitions claiming that their claims are well founded and this court may now adjudicate the same. In the reply to the claim petitions a preliminary objection was taken in all the three claim petitions, on the basis of which the following preliminary issue in each of these cases, has been framed : " Whether the objection petition is maintainable in view of Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 ? "
(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the Rules, I am of the opinion that the preliminary objection is well founded as is clear from the scheme of the Rules. Rule 147 of the Rules authorises the official liquidator, however, subject to the direction by this court, to fix a certain date which shall not be less than 14 days from the date of notice to be given to the creditors to prove their debts or claims. Under Rule 148 of the Rules, the official liquidator has to give 14 days' notice of the date so fixed by advertisement in one issue of a daily newspaper in the English language and one issue of a daily newspaper in the regional language circulating in the State or Union Territory concerned, as he shall consider suitable, to the creditors. It is in response to this notice that the procedure as prescribed in Rules 149 to 163 of the Rules, has to be followed and ultimately the official liquidator has been empowered under Rule 163 of the Rules to accept or reject the proof of the claims. Under Rule 164 of the Rules, which is in the following terms, appeal has been provided against the order passed by the official liquidator under Rule 163 of the Rules: "164. Appeal by creditor.--If a creditor is dissatisfied with the decision of the liquidator in respect of his proof, the creditor may, not later than 21 days from the date of service of the notice upon him of the decision of the liquidator, appeal to the court against the decision. The appeal shall be made by a judge's summons, supported by an affidavit which shall set out the grounds of such appeal, and notice of the appeal shall be given to the liquidator. On such appeal the court shall have all the powers of an appellate court under the Code. "
(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, no appeal has been filed Mr. Baldev Kapoor, the learned counsel for the claimants, relies on the provisions of Rule 177 of the Rules, which is as follows : "177. Procedure on failure to prove the debt within the time fixed.--If any creditor fails to file proof of his debt with the liquidator within the time specified in the advertisement referred to in Rule 148, such creditor may apply to the court for relief, and the court may, thereupon, adjudicate upon the debt or direct the liquidator to do so. " Keeping in view the scheme of the Rules and the language of Rule 177 of the Rules, it is clear that Rule 177 will apply to those cases where the claimants failed to come to know about the notice published by the official liquidator under Rule 148 of the Rules and failed to file proof of their claims within the time specified by advertisement as referred to in Rule 148 of the Rules. Where the claimants appear in response to the said advertisement and are unable to substantiate their claims, in that case when order is passed by the official liquidator under Rule 163 of the Rules, an appeal is preferable under Rule 164 of the Rules. In the present case, it is not disputed that all the three claimants did appear before the official liquidator but their claims were not accepted by the official liquidator to the extent they wanted the same to be accepted. It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions of Rule 177 of the Rules are not attracted.;