ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 31.08.2005 made in Company Application No.134 of 2005 in Company Petition No.263 of 2001. The Company M/s. Secals Limited has been ordered to be wound up as per the orders of this Court dated 01.08.2002 in C.P. No.263 of 2001 on the basis of the recommendations made in BIFR No.332 of 2000. By the said order, the Company Court directed the Official Liquidator to take charge of the assets of the company. Further, the directors of the company were directed to file statement of affairs within three weeks from the date of the order of liquidation of the company. This Court, in O.S.As. Nos.244 and 245 of 2003 by order dated 17.12.2003 permitted the appellant herein to sell the assets of the company in liquidation and deposit the sale proceeds to the credit of the company petition after defraying the expenses. Pursuant to the same, a sum of Rs.5,20,29,899/ - has been transferred to the Official Liquidator by the appellant on 16.04.2004. Thereupon the appellant filed an application in Company Application No.134 of 2005 seeking for a direction from this Court to the Official Liquidator to pay the sum of Rs.4,42,25,414.15 from and out of the deposit made by the appellant. This Court, by order dated 04.02.2005 directed the Official Liquidator to transfer the said sum of Rs.4,42,25,414.15 lying to the credit of C.P. No.263 of 2001 to the appellant secured creditor on condition that the appellant has to necessarily bring back the entire money to the credit of the Company Petition, if a need for the same arises for completion of adjudication. Pursuant to the same on 14.02.2005 the Official Liquidator deposited the said amount with the appellant bank. Thereupon, on 31.08.2005 that application came up for further orders before the Company Court. The Court passed the following order :

(2.) WE heard Mr.Jayesh, learned counsel and also the Official Liquidator.

(3.) THE appellant is not the only secured creditor. There are several other secured creditors and also unsecured creditors. The amount realised in the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation has to be disbursed in accordance with the provisions of the Company Court Rules. Any deposit made during the interregnum period has to necessarily be with the Official Liquidator who is holding the amount in fiduciary capacity as a trustee for the creditors and any deposit made during the interregnum period has to earn interest so as to enable the Official Liquidator to make use of the interest income for disposal of both the secured creditors and other creditors. As per the provisions of the Company Court Rules, we are not able to countenance the argument of the learned counsel to the effect that the deposit made with the appellant bank need not be burdened with interest. To that extent, the order of the learned single Judge has been confirmed. In the second part of the order made by the learned single Judge, the rate of interest has not been quantified.