O L OF VARIOUS COMPANIES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Official Liquidator has filed the present Report dated 27-12-2011, making the following prayers:

(2.) IT is stated in the Report that the Official Liquidator is presently having 462 Companies (in liquidation). By order dated 03-05-2006 passed in Official Liquidator's Report No.39 of 2006, the Court granted permission to engage certain advocates who have been on the Panel of the Office of the Official Liquidator, and who have been named in paragraph 2 thereof, at a monthly retainership prescribed in the said order. It is submitted that certain advocates tendered their resignations from the Panel of Advocates and at present, there are only four panel advocates defending all cases on behalf of the Official Liquidator, out of which one advocate is looking after cases pending before the Labour Court, Small Causes Court and other Courts. It is stated in the Report that in the year 1997-98 matters of Amruta Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) were listed for hearing. Several matters were pending in respect of the leased deeds executed in favour of the Companies (in Liquidation), more particularly Textile Mills. The Official Liquidator has, in paragraph 8 of the Report, referred to an oral direction given by a Single Judge (Coram: H.L.Gokhale,J -as His Lordship then was) to entrust the matter to Mr. Roshan Desai (hence-forth referred as "the concerned advocate") who was appearing for several Banks and was well conversant with land transaction matters. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid, these matters were entrusted to the concerned advocate. It is further stated in the Report that in the case of Vitta Mazda Ltd. (in Liquidation) the issue involved is legally complicated, therefore, the brief was entrusted to the concerned advocate. The case of Piramal Financial Services Ltd. (In Liquidation) has also been referred to and it is stated that this court (Coram: K.M.Mehta,J) appointed the concerned advocate as advocate of the Official Liquidator to attend civil and criminal matters.

(3.) THE Official Liquidator has stated in paragraph 22 of the Report, that an objection was raised regarding the appearance of concerned advocate in the matter of Mardia Steel Ltd. (In Liquidation), therefore, this Report is filed for ratifying the action taken by the Official Liquidator in entrusting the briefs to the concerned advocate as Special Arguing Counsel. In paragraph 23 it is mentioned that if the Court so directs, the Official Liquidator, will obtain prior approval before any brief is entrusted to the Special Arguing Counsel, and in case the brief is entrusted 'immediately', looking to the urgency of the matter, the Official Liquidator will seek ratification of the action of entrusting the brief.