(1.) In this appeal, which is by one of the creditors of M/s- Capital Chit Fund (P) Limited, counsel for the Official Liquidator wants to adduce proof in support of the decision of the Official Liquidator appealed against. I think this procedure cannot be followed in this particular case.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Mrs. Parkash Bhasin. appellant in this court, had placed proof before the Official Liquidator concerning her claim that the company in liquidation was indebted to her to the extent of Rs. 3,585,50. Instead of ascertaining as to how much out of this claim should be rejected, the Official Liquidator by his letter, dated 29th Sept., 1973, communicated to the appellant that he accepted the claim to the extent of Rs. 2,585.00. This led to some further correspondence between the appellant and the Official Liquidator whichhh is also annexed to the appeal. Eventually, the Official liquidator informed the appellant that the sum of Rs. 2,585.00 was correctly admitted and the appellant could file an appeal under Rule 164. It is necessary to say at once, that I find the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed by the, Official Liquidator, and it is not possible to hear the appeal merely by calling the Official Liquidator to produce proof in support of the decision appealed against. In fact, the true position is that, in accordance with the provisions of Rules 163, 164 and 165, the Official Liquidator has not yet passed the order required by Rule 163.
(3.) The procedure prescribed by Rule 163 shows how the Official Liquidator is to deal with the proof adduced by a creditor of the company in liquidation; he can accept the proof or he can reject the proof or he can reach a conclusion partly rejecting the proof and partly rejecting the same. The Official Liquidator is not required by Rule 163 to give any reasons when he accepts the proof, but if he rejects the proof, then the rejection has to be in Form No. 69. The important words of Rule 163 are as follows: