SAVITRI TWISTEX PVT LTD Vs. ARUN PASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 10th October 1997, this Court directed issuance of show-cause notice to Mr. Arun Pasari as to why advertisement charges should not be recovered from him. The advertisement in question was given and published by the Official Liquidator for sale of two flats of the company at Ulhasnagar. Against that advertisement, company application No.176 of 1995 was moved by the company and this Court by its order dated 2nd January 1995 issued notice which was made returnable on 15th January 1995 and granted ad-interim order. The result of this ad-interim order was that the sale could not take place. That company application was rejected by this Court by its order dated 21st April, 1995. Therefore, the ad-interim order passed by this Court continued to operate from 2nd January 1995 to 21st April 1995. According to the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Arun Pasari to whom show-cause notice has been issued, the sale could not be held pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Official Liquidator because of an ad-interim order passed by this Court. This Court has passed the ad-interim order on the basis of the application that was filed by the company. In the submission of the learned counsel for Mr Arun Pasari, an order for recovery of the cost of advertisement could have been made by this Court while finally disposing of the company application No. 176 of 1995. However, by order dated 21st April 1995 when the company application was disposed of, no such order was made. In the submission of the learned counsel, cancellation of advertisement and proceedings was the result of an order made by this Court. No doubt, the order was made at the instance of Ex-Director of the company, however, for the consequences of an order passed by this Court, the applicant cannot be held liable.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the noticee and after having gone through the record, I find that the sale could not take place pursuant to the advertisement and was a consequence of an order made by this Court in company application No.176 of 1990. If the applicant in that application is to be held responsible for the consequence of ad-interim order that was made by this Court on his application, that order would have been made by this Court while disposing of that application. In my opinion, cancellation of the advertisement is a result of an order made by this Court, the applicant at whose instance that order was made cannot be held responsible in independent proceedings. That can be done by the Court while disposing of the said proceedings wherein the ad-interim order was made. Therefore, to my mind, there is no justification for recovery of the charges of the advertisement from the noticee. The proceedings are disposed of.