JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 392 of the Companies Act, whereby some modifications are sought in the scheme which was approved by this court on December 15, 1975, in S.B, Company Petition No. 3 of 1971. 2. The company came under liquidation on May 10, 1968. Sarvashri Maharaj Kishan, New Delhi, and Suresh Chandra, New Delhi, made an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act read with Rule 67 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, on or about March 24, 1971, which came to be registered as Company Petition No. 3 of 1971. These two petitioners sponsored a scheme for payment of the outstanding claims of the creditors of the company. During the period when this petition was pending before the court, a scheme was sponsored by the present applicant on October 11, 1974. On January 3, 1975, the court directed that a meeting be called on March 16, 1975, for consideration of the scheme. Shri M.M. Singhvi, advocate, was nominated to preside over the meeting. Shri Singhvi submitted his report on October 21, 1975. As per his report the meeting was attended by a requisite majority of creditors. The quorum was complete on the lines indicated in the order dated January 3, 1975. The meeting was attended also, among others, by the representatives of the I.T. Dept. In this meeting a scheme was unanimously adopted on March 16, 1975. When the matter came up for consideration before the court no objections were raised either on behalf of the creditors or on behalf of the official liquidator, except a few of a formal character. The court further ordered that the scheme as sanctioned would become operative from the date of the order of sanctioning, but in case an appeal was filed, it would become operative when the appeal was disposed of. Certain modifications were ordered by the court while finally sanctioning the scheme on December 15, 1975. It is not necessary to refer to those modifications as now the final order of the court dated December 15, 1975, is on record, and is available for ready reference. An appeal was, however, filed against the order of this court dated December 15, 1975. This appeal was registered as Appeal No. 4 of 1976. It is not necessary to refer to those modifications as now the final order of the court dated December 15, 1975, is on record, and is available for ready reference. An appeal was, however, filed against the order of this court dated December 15, 1975. This appeal was registered as Appeal No. 4 of 1976. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that as a result of long and protracted negotiations, discussions and personal conferences held between the applicants on the one hand and the I.T. Dept. on the other, a compromise had been arrived at between them. This compromise was filed before the Division Bench on September 21, 1979. The Appeal No. 4 of 1976 came up for hearing on September 24, 1979. In view of this compromise, the appeal was not pressed, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is in consequence of this withdrawal of appeal, that the scheme ordered by this court on December 15, 1975, has become operative. 3. The company in liquidation has to pay income-tax dues and has also to make payment to the various creditors. The present compromise which has been arrived at between the applicants and the I.T. Dept. deals only with the problems of payment to the I.T. Dept. their dues. The creditors have already been paid 60% of their dues. 40% still remains to be paid. The applicants, I.T. Dept. and Shri Bhawani Shankar, purported to be the secretary of the creditor's association, moved a joint application for giving effect to the compromise which has been entered into between the petitioners and the I.T. Dept, Shri Bhawani Shankar, however, at a later stage, changed his stand and objected to the compromise which has been entered into between the petitioners and the I.T. Dept. His contention along with one or two other creditors who were present, is that the present compromise only settles the dispute regarding the payment of income-tax dues between the petitioners and the I.T. Dept., but has not cared for making payment of the dues to the creditors. Apart from this, the creditors have claimed interest from May 10, 1968, on their amounts. 4. The official liquidator, on the other hand, has opposed the modifications in the scheme dated December 15, 1975, sought by the petitioners and the I.T. Dept. in pursuance of the agreement entered into between them. Apart from this, the creditors have claimed interest from May 10, 1968, on their amounts. 4. The official liquidator, on the other hand, has opposed the modifications in the scheme dated December 15, 1975, sought by the petitioners and the I.T. Dept. in pursuance of the agreement entered into between them. The contention of the official liquidator is that after the sanction of the scheme dated December 15, 1975, this court has become functus officio, and cannot entertain any further application for modifications in the scheme already sanctioned. It was further contended by the official liquidator that the creditors are entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% on the amounts advanced by them. If interest were to be calculated at the rate of 12% it would come to about 90 lakhs of rupees. The official liquidator contends that a provision for this amount should be made before any modification in the scheme dated December 15, 1975, is made. It has been further contended on behalf of the official liquidator that he is to be paid the charges, costs and expenses before any modification is sanctioned. According to the official liquidator the interest which has accrued in favour of the creditors would also be included in the "term charges, costs and expenses". It was also contended by the official liquidator that, according to the terms of the agreement which have been entered into, a bank guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs has been filed in favour of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. His contention is that the Additional Registrar should not be brought into the picture because it is the exclusive domain of the official liquidator to deal with the funds coming under the provisions of the Companies Act. The official liquidator has also contended that he has yet to decide certain claims of the I.T. Dept. which might be admitted to proof, and that advocates were engaged in various proceedings and their fees has to be paid. In substance, the contention of the official liquidator is that the proposed agreement entered into between the petitioner and the I.T. Dept. should stand over till the formalities are completed and till interest of the creditors at the rate of 12% is paid. In substance, the contention of the official liquidator is that the proposed agreement entered into between the petitioner and the I.T. Dept. should stand over till the formalities are completed and till interest of the creditors at the rate of 12% is paid. In the alternative, it has been contended by the official liquidator that under Rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, in the event of there being a surplus after payment in full of all the claims admitted to proof, creditors, whose proofs have been admitted shall be paid interest from the date of the winding-up order or of the resolution, as the case may be, up to the date of the declaration of the final dividend, at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent. per annum, on the admitted amount of the claim, after adjusting against the said amount the dividends declared as on the date of the declaration of each dividend. Even under Section 208(6) of the Companies Act the rate of interest shall, in no case, exceed four per cent. per annum or such other rate as the Central Govt. may, by notification in the official gazette, direct. 5. Certain objections have also been raised by the official liquidator about the solvency of the bank guarantee and also about its being in favour of the Additional Registrar. 6. The creditors have mainly contended that they should be paid interest from May 10, 1968, when the winding-up order was passed. One of the creditors, Shri G. S. Bedi, has also filed objections against the modification of the scheme. 7. The official liquidator has, by his application dated October 9, 1979, drawn the attention of the court to certain references which have been made by the Income-tax Tribunal on the question whether interest payable to the creditors could be included in the costs, charges and expenses. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to Clause (1) of the scheme sanctioned on December 15, 1975, costs, charges and expenses of the official liquidator up to the date of commencement of the scheme as provided under the law have to be paid. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to Clause (1) of the scheme sanctioned on December 15, 1975, costs, charges and expenses of the official liquidator up to the date of commencement of the scheme as provided under the law have to be paid. Apart from this, full payment to the creditors of the company as per the claims already accepted and to be accepted up to the date of the company going out of liquidation by the official liquidator, in full and final satisfaction of their dues against the company. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amounts to be paid to the creditors have been quantified to be Rs. 41,89,072.53 in the scheme dated December 15, 1975. This represents the balance of 40% of the ordinary creditors, as the preferential creditors have already been paid in full and the ordinary creditors have been paid to the extent of 60%. The learned counsel for the petitioners have further contended that in the scheme dated December 15, 1975, no interest was contemplated to be paid to the creditors. It was also contended that after the scheme has been sanctioned, it has a statutory force, and the creditors are not entitled to claim any interest whatsoever after having consented to the scheme dated December 15, 1975. It was also contended that the petitioner alone filed an appeal before the Division Bench, and neither the creditors nor the official liquidator filed any appeal before the Division Bench, The appeal filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed on September 24, 1979, as not pressed. This dismissal of the appeal on September 24, 1979, gives a final shape to the scheme which was sanctioned on December 15, 1975. The creditors, at the time when the scheme was being approved, did not lay claim for their interest; and, at any rate, as the scheme has become final and has statutory force, their claim for interest is not at all sustainable. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are prepared to pay the normal costs, charges and expenses incurred by the official liquidator, but they are unable to meet the highly exaggerated figures which have been put forth by the official liquidator. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are prepared to pay the normal costs, charges and expenses incurred by the official liquidator, but they are unable to meet the highly exaggerated figures which have been put forth by the official liquidator. It was contended that according to r, 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, only interest up to 4% is permissible, if the funds are in excess after meeting all liabilities. However, the official liquidator, against the mandatory provisions of Section 208(6) of the Companies Act, and Rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, has calculated interest at the rate of 12% and has, thus, swelled the figures to about 90 lakhs of rupees, which might render the scheme utterly unworkable. The official liquidator, it was contended, has also claimed that he has to pay 5 lakhs of rupees as fees to various advocates for conducting the cases on behalf of the company. It was vehemently contended that the official liquidator, who, under the law, has to look after the welfare of the ex-management, has taken a completely hostile attitude and, under these circumstances, the claims, which have been preferred by him only with a view to defeat the agreement arrived at between the applicants and the I.T. Dept., deserves to be scrutinised with care and caution. It was further contended that it was under these special circumstances that the bank guarantee had to be furnished in favour of the Addl. Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur Bench. It was further contended that the Addl. Registrar of the High Court is a senior district judge and occupies a much higher position than the official liquidator, and there should have been no objection on behalf of the official liquidator if the bank guarantee has been furnished in his (Registrar's) favour. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that this is not a small achievement that the creditors are being paid in full; the I.T. Dept. is also paid in full and that a company is striving to go out of liquidation. It was contended that, as a matter of fact, the official liquidator, who looks after the interests of the ex-management, should co-operate in the final shape of things to come rather than to raise fictitious and exaggerated claims against the company in liquidation. is also paid in full and that a company is striving to go out of liquidation. It was contended that, as a matter of fact, the official liquidator, who looks after the interests of the ex-management, should co-operate in the final shape of things to come rather than to raise fictitious and exaggerated claims against the company in liquidation. It was also contended that in Clause l(b) of the scheme dated December 15, 1975, full payment to the creditors of the company, as per the claims already accepted and to be accepted up to the date of the company going out of liquidation by the official liquidator, means only such other claims which were not admitted to proof before the official liquidator till this scheme was drawn up. It was contended that by no stretch of imagination this Sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 of the scheme dated December 15, 1975, could mean interest to be paid to the creditors in terms of Rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules. 9. The learned counsel for the official liquidator has contended that in Sub-clause (b) of Clause 1 of the said scheme, the claims to be accepted up to the date of the company going out oi liquidation by the official liquidator would include the interest payable to the creditors on the respective amounts. It was contended that such payment of interest under Rule 179 would arise only when the final dividend is to be paid, and as that stage has not reached, the question of making reference to the interest could not arise at the time when the scheme was being finalised on December 15, 1975. 10. It was also contended that this would be very atrocious if the interest is not paid to the poor creditors who had advanced money to the company under liquidation in the hope that they would get interest. The company came under liquidation on May 10, 1968 and, even after 11 years, if the interest is not paid to the creditors, this would be very atrocious to them in these days of financial stringency. 11. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and of the creditors present in person have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 12. A scheme was sanctioned by this court on December 15, 1975. 11. Respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and of the creditors present in person have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 12. A scheme was sanctioned by this court on December 15, 1975. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this court which was dismissed on September 24, 1979, as not having been pressed. The scheme dated December 15, 1975, has, thus, come into force. The scheme once sanctioned by the court acquires statutory force. In Premila Devi v. People's Bank of Northern India Ltd. [1939] 9 Comp Cas 1 (PC) , it was held that upon confirmation by the court of a scheme of arrangement, that scheme becomes, by virtue of Section 153, binding upon the creditors, the shareholders and the company. Its terms can thereafter only be varied by order of the court after the variation had been approved at meetings of the creditors and shareholders and it is not possible for the company or its directors or shareholders, whether by resolution or ratification or otherwise, to alter the scheme. Nor is it possible for the company or its directors to vary the scheme under the guise of a compromise with a shareholder, as no variation or departure from that scheme can be validated by the mere acquiescence of the shareholders or the creditors. 13. In John Brothers v. Offl. Liq., Agra Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. [1936] 6 Comp Cas 219 (All) , it was held that a company judge has jurisdiction for the purpose of carrying out the liquidation, that is the realisation of the assets of the company, and payment to the creditors, etc. 14. Under Section 392 of the Companies Act, it is provided that where a High Court makes an order under Section 391 sanctioning a compromise or an arrangement in respect of a company, it (a) shall have power to supervise the carrying out of the compromise or arrangement; and (b) may, at the time of making such order or at any time thereafter, give such directions in regard to any matter or make such modifications in the compromise or arrangement as it may consider necessary for the proper working of the compromise or arrangement. 15. If any modification is to be made, then, it is not necessary to issue a fresh notice to the Central Govt. 15. If any modification is to be made, then, it is not necessary to issue a fresh notice to the Central Govt. Section 394A provides that the court shall give notice of every application made to it under Section 391 or Section 394 to the Central Govt., and shall take into consideration the representations, if any, made to it by that Government before passing any order under any of these sections. Thus, it is clear that Section 394A does not apply to the proceedings under Section 392 of the Act. Under Section 392 of the Companies Act, the court possesses ample powers to supervise the carrying out of the compromise or arrangement, or to make such modifications and alterations as may be necessary. Reliance has been placed on Mansukhlal v. M.V. Shah, Offl. Liq., Hathising Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1976] 46 Comp Cas 279 (Guj) , wherein it has been held as under (headnote): " No hard and fast rule can be laid down on the point whether every change in sponsorship should be referred back to the members or creditors. The company law in India has conferred statutory powers on the High Court to make such modifications in the compromise or arrangement as the court may consider necessary for the proper working of the compromise and arrangement. The power of the widest amplitude has been conferred on the court under Section 392(1)(b) of the Companies Act. Reading Section 392(1)(a) and (b), it appears that Parliament did not want the court to be functus officio as soon as the scheme of compromise and arrangement is sanctioned by it. The court has a continuing supervision over the implementation of the compromise and arrangement. Parliament has thought it fit to trust the wisdom of the court rather than go back to the interested parties for seeking their approval for every modification. Parliament has conferred power on the court, not only to make modifications even at the time of sanctioning the scheme but at any time thereafter during the period the scheme is being implemented. The power seems to be absolute and of the widest amplitude. Parliament has conferred power on the court, not only to make modifications even at the time of sanctioning the scheme but at any time thereafter during the period the scheme is being implemented. The power seems to be absolute and of the widest amplitude. Reliance was also placed on Ram Lal Anand v. Bank of Baroda [1976] 46 Comp Cas 307 (Delhi) , wherein it has been held as under (headnote): " In exercising its powers under Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, namely, the power to supervise the carrying out of the compromise or arrangement which has been sanctioned by it under Section 391, the court need not wait for an application in order to pass any particular order. It can pass such orders suo motu. No hard and fast rules can be laid down for the manner in which the court will exercise its powers under Section 392." 16. Rules 86 and 87 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read as under: "86. Report on working of compromise or arrangement - At any time after the passing of the order sanctioning the compromise or arrangement, the court may, either of its own motion or on the application of any person interested, make an order directing the company, or, where the company is being wound up, the liquidator, to submit to the court within such time as the court may fix, a report on the working of the said compromise or arrangement. On a consideration of the report, the court may pass such orders or give such directions as it may think fit. 87. Liberty to apply. - (1) The company, or any creditor or member thereof, or, in the case of a company which is being wound up, the liquidator, may, at any time after the passing of the order sanctioning the compromise or arrangement, apply to the court for the determination of any question relating to the working of the compromise or arrangement. (2) The application shall in the first instance be posted before the court for directions as to the notices and the advertisement, if any, to issue, as the court may direct. (2) The application shall in the first instance be posted before the court for directions as to the notices and the advertisement, if any, to issue, as the court may direct. (3) The court may, on such application, pass such orders and give such directions as it may think fit in regard to the matter, and may make such modifications in the compromise or arrangement as it may consider necessary for the proper working thereof, or pass such other order as it may think fit in the circumstances of the case." 17. The position of law thus crystallised is that under Section 392 of the Companies Act this court has ample powers of supervising the carrying out of the scheme or arrangement and has also powers to make such modifications as may be necessary. 18. The compromise or agreement entered into by the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. and the necessary arrangement for making full payment to the creditors has to be viewed whether this scheme or arrangement would work in the interest of all concerned. The scheme dated December 15, 1975, remains intact so far as the creditors are concerned. Under the scheme the creditors are to be paid a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs odd. By the present arrangement the entire amount, it is said, is to be paid to the creditors. Thus, the creditors are not at all affected by an arrangement which is entered into by the I.T. Dept. and the petitioners. It is only the mode of payment to the I.T. Dept. which has been sought to be modified or changed by this agreement. The claim of the creditors remains absolutely unaffected, and the only point to be considered is, whether the creditors are entitled to receive interest from the date of the winding-up, i.e., May 10, 1968, and, if so, at what rate. 19. As stated earlier, the scheme dated December 15, 1975, does not envisage for the payment of any interest to the creditors. The scheme after having been sanctioned by the court has statutory force. So far as the creditors are concerned, they did not file any appeal against the scheme. The claims of the creditors have already been quantified. 19. As stated earlier, the scheme dated December 15, 1975, does not envisage for the payment of any interest to the creditors. The scheme after having been sanctioned by the court has statutory force. So far as the creditors are concerned, they did not file any appeal against the scheme. The claims of the creditors have already been quantified. If the creditors did not claim interest at the time of sanctioning of the scheme on December 15, 1975, they now cannot claim interest simply because an agreement between the petitioner and the I.T. Dept. has been made for changing the mode of their payment. Even under Rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, interest up to 4% could be paid if there were surplus in the hands of the company. There is no such contingency and, as such, the question of payment of interest to the creditors does not arise at all. The creditors are being paid their amount in full as per the scheme dated December 15, 1975, which has become final. It is definitely the duty of this court to ensure that the properties of the petitioners are not released till a satisfactory arrangement is made for full payment to the creditors. According to the present compromise, 17 lakhs of rupees would be available for payment to the creditors, apart from the funds which are already available with the official liquidator. The official liquidator, on October 15, 1979, filed a statement of account under the directions of this court, according to which there would be shortfall of Rs. 5,30,000 in full payment to the creditors with the amount which is available with the official liquidator after taking into consideration 7 lakhs of rupees which would be realised from the bank guarantee. This amount of Rs. 5,30,000 would include the costs, charges and expenses of the official liquidator's office, advocates' fees and other charges which the official liquidator claims. 20. The other question that the bank guarantee ought not to have been given in favour of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and ought to have been given in favour of the official liquidator, is not of much significance. In supervising the scheme and carrying it out, the court has the absolute discretion to ask any responsible officer of this court to assist the court in carrying out or supervising the scheme. In supervising the scheme and carrying it out, the court has the absolute discretion to ask any responsible officer of this court to assist the court in carrying out or supervising the scheme. This is really unfortunate that there should have been such a great misunderstanding between the ex-management and the official liquidator. As a matter of fact, the official liquidator in distributing accumulated profits merely acts as agent or administrator for and on behalf of company (Ref.: Hari Prasad Jayantilal and Co. v. V.S. Gupta, ITO [1966] 59 ITR 794; AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1481 ). 21. If the scheme is approved, a sum of 23 lakhs of rupees has to be paid to the I.T. Dept., out of Rs. 40 lakhs for which a bank guarantee has been given. The payment to the I.T. Dept. should not, in any way, be objectionable to the official liquidator. The rest of Rs. 17 lakhs would be transferred to the official liquidator by the Additional Registrar for making payment to the creditors. The Additional Registrar does not, as a matter of fact, do any of those jobs which the official liquidator is called upon to do. The apprehension of the official liquidator, in my considered opinion, appears to be absolutely unfounded. He should have absolutely no apprehension that the Addl. Registrar will not act in strict accordance with the provision of the Companies Act and the directions of this court. As a matter of fact, if the presence of the Addl. Registrar enures to the completion of the scheme, the official liquidator should rather feel grateful than to be sorry about it. 22. The plea on behalf of the official liquidator that interest would be included in the costs, expenses and charges, need not be decided at all as held earlier. The creditors are not entitled to interest in view of the scheme sanctioned on December 15, 1975. The expression costs, charges and expenses, is very general and includes costs of repairs, payment of rent and taxes, cost of preservation of any property, cost of realisation including cost of liquidation, and all expenses incurred with the leave of the court in the winding-up including liquidator's remuneration, if any. 23. There is an important aspect which has a direct bearing on the present petition. The official liquidator has moved an application (Misc. 23. There is an important aspect which has a direct bearing on the present petition. The official liquidator has moved an application (Misc. Company Petition No. 94 of 1979), wherein he has prayed that the court may allow the official liquidator to pay interest to the creditors on their borrowings, or to allow the applicant to dispose of the assets and property of the company in liquidation in the interest of the creditors and the winding-up proceedings. The official liquidator has also prayed that as the company has been in liquidation since May 10, 1968, permission should be accorded to sell the two cinemas at Delhi and Bombay to meet the expenses, demand of the I. T. Dept. and the payment of dividend and interest to the creditors. It, thus, appears that the official liquidator thinks it proper that the assets of the company should be sold and that he should be permitted to carry on the business of the said company for the beneficial winding-up of the same, viz., the continuance of the running of two cinemas, Marathan Mandir Cinema and Golcha Cinema, Delhi, as the same was considered to be the most beneficial mode of realisation of the valuable assets of the company in liquidation. As the company has been in liquidation for more than 11 years, the official liquidator thinks it proper that permission should be accorded to him to sell these cinemas so that such interest may be paid to the creditors as might have accrued to them. As stated earlier, the present agreement or arrangement between the petitioners and I. T. Dept. only changes the mode of payment of the I. T. Dept. dues and does not at all affect the rights of the creditors which were determined by the scheme dated December 15, 1975. According to the present arrangement, the I. T. Dept. is likely to be paid 30 lakhs of rupees and the creditors are to be paid in full. The costs, expenses and charges incurred by the official liquidator are also to be paid in full. The lawyers' fees to be determined by the court shall also be paid in full. 24. According to the present arrangement, the I. T. Dept. is likely to be paid 30 lakhs of rupees and the creditors are to be paid in full. The costs, expenses and charges incurred by the official liquidator are also to be paid in full. The lawyers' fees to be determined by the court shall also be paid in full. 24. Having given my most anxious consideration to the entire aspects of the present arrangement or agreement entered into between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept., I have no hesitation in holding that the present arrangement would be to the benefit of all concerned. The creditors' rights as determined in the scheme dated December 15, 1975, remains absolutely unaltered and unchanged. They shall be paid their full amount due within a short span of time, say, about two months. The company gets out of liquidation. The I. T. Dept. is satisfied; the creditors are paid in full and so also the costs, expenses and charges of the official liquidator are paid. Under these circumstances, the scheme and the arrangement which has been submitted by the petitioners deserves to be accepted. 25. It is accordingly ordered that the scheme dated December 15, 1975, shall stand modified to the extent to which the present scheme or arrangement between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. has been arrived at. The interest of the creditors shall remain unaltered and unchanged as envisaged under the scheme dated December 15, 1975. They are to be paid the remaining amount in full as expeditiously as possible. 26. As indicated earlier, there is a shortfall of Rs. 5,30,000 as per the figures worked out by the official liquidator on October 15, 1979. It is accordingly ordered that the petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 61 lakhs within a period of one week from the date of this order in favour of the official liquidator. On the furnishing of the said guarantee, all necessary steps shall be taken by the Addl. Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur Bench and the official liquidator to faithfully and punctually carry out the scheme dated December 15, 1975, as modified by the present compromise or arrangement between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. On the furnishing of the said guarantee, all necessary steps shall be taken by the Addl. Registrar of the High Court at Jaipur Bench and the official liquidator to faithfully and punctually carry out the scheme dated December 15, 1975, as modified by the present compromise or arrangement between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. If the bank guarantee of 61 lakhs of rupees is not furnished within a week's time, this order shall stand vacated and the scheme dated December 15, 1975, shall be enforced without reference to the compromise or agreement entered into between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. 27. The scheme dated December 15, 1975, as modified by the present agreement or arrangement between the petitioners and the I. T. Dept. shall be enforced forthwith. In case of inconsistencies between the scheme dated December 15, 1975, and the present agreement or arrangement the clauses of the present agreement or arrangement shall supersede the relevant clauses of the scheme dated December 15, 1975. A harmonious construction shall be put in bringing together the clauses of the scheme dated December 15, 1975, and the present agreement or arrangement. In case of doubt or of serious ambiguity, directions may be obtained from the court on an application being moved in writing. 28. A prayer has been made that the various suits and other proceedings pending for and on behalf of the Golcha properties should be ordered to be filed. At present, it is not possible to pass any specific order with regard to the various proceedings which are pending. After this scheme has been put into force specific orders would ,be passed on each file, when they come up before this court for further proceeding. *******