Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) SINCE both the company applications are inter -connected, hence are being decided by the present order.
(2.) COMPANY Application No. 67/2007 has been filed by the applicant company under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking direction against Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the company assets on the premise that winding up order dt.28.7.2000 has been set aside by the Division Bench vide order dt.19.12.05 passed in D.B. Special Appeal -64/2000. Counsel for the applicant submits that once the winding up order dt.28.7.2000, in pursuance to which the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as provisional liquidator, has been set aside by the Division Bench vide order dt.19.12.05 in appeal preferred, the Official Liquidator is under legal obligation to restore possession of the company assets to the applicant and since the Official Liquidator failed to discharge legal obligation, applicant company has approached this Court by filing instant company application.
(3.) COUNSEL for Official Liquidator on the other hand submits that Official Liquidator has no objection in handing over possession of the company assets as prayed for but at the same time the expenses incurred in maintaining company property/assets by deploying security guards has to be borne out by the applicant company while the possession of the company assets being handed over as prayed for.;