M. S. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) AARTHI Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. has been ordered to be wound up by this Courts order dated 16. 6. 1998. ( 2 ) COMPANY Application Nos. 66, 67 and 68 of 1993 are filed by the National Labour Union representing the workers of M/s Aarti Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Company in liquidation or `the Company ). The workers case in these applications is that the Directors of the Company in liquidation were also partners in certain other partnership firms called M/s Sukan Chemicals, M/s Sims Laboratories, M/s Parag Investors, M/s. Aditya Distributors, M/s Gaurav Chemicals, M/s Sukan Traders, M/s Kalpana Traders, M/s Sukan Investors, M/s Irma Distributors and M/s Suhan Traders and the same persons were also Directors in M/s Parag Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sukan Laboratories Pt Ltd. over and above the Company in liquidation. It is the case of the workers that the said firms had borrowed monies from Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for brevity `kalupur Bank) and Manek Chowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for brevity `manekchowk Bank ). On account of non-payment of those loans, the above named banks filed suits against the aforesaid firms before the Board of Nominees where decrees were passed against the firms, partners and their guarantors. The sale proceeds during the course of execution proceedings are lying deposited with the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The workers prayed that the properties which have been sold in the aforesaid execution proceedings really belong to the Company in liquidation and, therefore, the workers have a claim over the same alongwith the secured creditors and, therefore, the amounts lying with the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad should be distributed amongst the workers and the secured creditors of the Company in liquidation. In February/march, 1993, this Court granted ad-interim/interim stay of the execution proceedings and the amounts were required to be invested with Kalupur Bank as a short term deposit only. In February/march, 1993, this Court granted ad-interim/interim stay of the execution proceedings and the amounts were required to be invested with Kalupur Bank as a short term deposit only. ( 3 ) COMPANY Application No. 248 of 2000 is filed by Bank of India which claims to be the secured creditor of the Company in liquidation as well as of Sukan Chemicals, a firm whose properties have been sold and the amounts are lying deposited in the City Civil Court in the execution proceedings filed by other creditors against Sukan Chemicals and the partners of Sukan Chemicals in their capacity as partners and as guarantors. Bank of India itself had also filed suits against Sukan Chemicals and its partners and also against the Company (now in liquidation) before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. Those suits, which were filed before 1993, are now before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Bank of India also claims to be a secured creditor qua properties of the Company in liquidation as well as the properties of the above named firm-Sukan Chemicals. Bank of India has filed the above numbered application for vacating the interim orders passed in Company Application Nos. 66 to 68 of 1993. ( 4 ) THIS Court has heard Mrs Anand for the National Labour Union, MR SB Vakil for Kalupur Bank, Mr JT Trivedi for Bank of India and Mr UD Shukla for the Manekchowk Bank. ( 5 ). MRS Anand for the workers union has submitted that in view of the affidavit dated 1. 12. 1992 (Annexure "a" Pg. 5) filed by Madhukant Pranlal Shah in Company Petition No. 39 of 1990 and the affidavit dated 21. 8. 1991 (Annexure II Pg. 36) filed by Indravadan Pranlal Shah in Misc. Civil Application No. 498 of 1989, the partnership firms and the Companies were treated as one for the purpose of management and finances and that even as per the order dated 15. 3. 1990 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act in PW Application No. 108 of 1990, the Companies and the partnership firms were the same entity and the workers were held entitled to recover their dues from the properties of the Companies as well as from the properties of the partnership firms under the common management. 3. 1990 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act in PW Application No. 108 of 1990, the Companies and the partnership firms were the same entity and the workers were held entitled to recover their dues from the properties of the Companies as well as from the properties of the partnership firms under the common management. It is, therefore, submitted that the sale proceeds from the sale of the properties purporting to be in the name of the firms have to be treated as sale proceeds from the sale of properties of the Company in liquidation and, therefore, the workers have a right to claim priority under the provisions of Sections 529 and 529a of the Companies Act, 1956 over the said amounts lying in the City Civil Court. It is further submitted that this Court has the power and authority to lift the veil and to give a finding that the properties in question, which have been sold in the course of execution proceedings before the City Civil Court, really belong to the Company in liquidation. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1988 SC 1739, AIR 1986 SC 1670, AIR 1984 SC 1579 , AIR 2001 Kar. 176 , AIR 1999 SC 2352 , 2001 (4) Comp. LJ 44 and also in AIR 1994 Del. 25 . ( 6 ). IN reply, Mr SB Vakil, learned counsel for Kalupur Bank has raised a preliminary contention that Company Application Nos. 66 to 69 of 1993 are not maintainable as they do not state the provisions of law or the rule under which the applications are filed. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Form No. 2, the applicant is required to state the provisions of law under which an application is filed. It is, therefore, submitted that the applications are not maintainable. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 read with Form No. 2, the applicant is required to state the provisions of law under which an application is filed. It is, therefore, submitted that the applications are not maintainable. Secondly, it is submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 as interpreted by the decision of this Court in MG Doshit vs. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. , 1993 (2) GLH 734 ,the application would lie only if there is any specific provision in the Companies Act conferring jurisdiction on the Company Court to decide the dispute and that only such a dispute can be brought before the Company Court but not any other dispute. Thirdly, it is submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present applications because the claim is made over monies lying in the City Civil Court on account of sale proceeds pursuant to the sale of properties of the partnership firms against which decrees or awards were passed by the Board of Nominees in suits filed by the two co-operative banks. The Company was not a party to the suits or to the execution proceedings. Hence, the prayer made in these applications for transferring the execution proceedings to this Court cannot arise because under the provisions of Section 446 (3) only proceedings by or against the Company can be tried by the Company Court which is seized of the winding up proceedings against the Company. In the instant case, the winding up proceedings are in respect of Aarthi Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. The execution proceedings in question pending before the City Civil Court are not by or against Aarthi Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. , whether before this Court passed the winding up or thereafter. Hence, the present applications are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the execution proceedings against the partnership firms cannot be converted into proceedings against the Company because only those proceedings which are by or against the Company can be tried before this Court. Hence, the present applications are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the execution proceedings against the partnership firms cannot be converted into proceedings against the Company because only those proceedings which are by or against the Company can be tried before this Court. It is further submitted that there is no question of invoking or applying the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil because what the workers union purports to do is to request the Court that the properties of the partnership firms, which are not corporate entities, be covered with the corporate veil of the Company in liquidation and that this is quite different and opposite to the lifting corporate veil of the Company which is before the Court. It is submitted that since the properties which were sold in the course of execution proceedings belonged to the partnership firms which were debtors of the two co-operative banks in question, the workers of the Company in liquidation have no right to make any claim on the sale proceeds pursuant to the sale of the properties of the partnership firms as the workers can only look to the properties of the Company in liquidation. It is further submitted that in any view of the matter, there is nothing to show that the properties in question were purchased out of the funds of the Company which is now in liquidation. Hence, on merits the workers union have no case. ( 7 ) MR UD Shukla for the Manek Chowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. has also adopted the aforesaid submissions and further submitted that so-called affidavits of Madhukant Pranlal Shah and Indravadan Pranlal Shah were filed in proceedings to which the banks were not parties and that in any view of the matter, the so-called admissions made in those affidavits did not bind the creditor-banks. It is submitted that the so-called admissions did not prejudice the interest of the deponents of those affidavits as the deponents, (the Directors of the Company in liquidation) were interested in the properties of the partnership firms being treated as common properties of the firms and the Company in liquidation so that the workerss dues can be paid from those funds and the Directors are not required to face any prosecution or any other consequence flowing from the breach of any Labour Laws such as Payment of Wages Act. The so-called admissions were, therefore, made in collusion with the workers to avoid any criminal liability of the directors. It is further submitted that the Payment of the Wages Act is for the limited purpose of deciding the question arising in those proceedings and it cannot bind the creditors of the partnership firms who are not parties to the said proceedings. It is further submitted that admissions by the Directors of the Company in liquidation and the partners of the partnership firms in question cannot bind the creditors of the partnership firms. Admissions are not to be treated as conclusive evidence and this Court has got the discretion to decide whether to act on admissions or to ask for evidence. It is further submitted that apart from the fact that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil does not apply in this case, even where it is applicable, it is only in case of fraud that such doctrine can be invoked, but no such case is pleaded in these applications. ( 8 ). MR JT Trivedi, learned counsel for Bank of India has submitted that Bank of India is a secured creditor qua the properties of the Company in liquidation and also qua the properties of the partnership firms and it is not getting its dues as a secured creditor of the properties of the partnership firms on account of the interim stay operating in these proceedings and that, therefore, the interim stay deserves to be vacated so that the execution proceedings can go on and Bank of India can lodge its claim for share in the sale proceeds of the properties of the partnership firms. In rejoinder, Mrs Anand for the workers union has submitted that a Company Court does have the jurisdiction to entertain all claims in respect of a Company in liquidation including the claim over the properties which are sold in the course of execution proceedings before the City Civil Court, which are properties of the Company in liquidation and not of the partnership firms. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in 2000 (7) SCC 120 and 2001 (5) SCC 289 in support of the contention that admissions can be relied on for passing final orders and that the affidavits do constitute valid evidence. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in 2000 (7) SCC 120 and 2001 (5) SCC 289 in support of the contention that admissions can be relied on for passing final orders and that the affidavits do constitute valid evidence. It is submitted that merely because the promoters of the Company in liquidation had formed separate partnership firms and Companies in order to avoid applicability of relevant tax laws and labour laws, it did not mean that the properties standing in the name of the firms cannot be treated as properties of the Company in liquidation. ( 9 ). HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to the Court that various proceedings were taken out by the two co-operative banks viz. Kalupur Commercial Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Manek Chowk Co-operative Bank Ltd. for recovery of their dues/advances to different partnership firms - Gaurav Chemicals, Sukan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. , Sims Laboratory, Aditya Distributors, Parag Investors and to various individuals who were partners in these partnership firms and who also happened to be the Directors of the Company in liquidation. Details of those execution proceedings are as under :- ( 21 ). IT is further clarified that since the ad-interim stay is vacated and the execution Court will proceed in accordance with law, any deposit of the monies lying before the City Civil Court or appropriation thereof by the concerned creditors shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Official Liquidator to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in so far as the properties of the Company in liquidation are concerned. ( 22 ). IN view of the above order, Company Application No. 248 of 2000 filed by Bank of India does not survive and is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. ( 23 ). IN order to see that the workers of the Company in liquidation are not deprived of their legitimate dues, it is directed that if the Official Liquidator has not so far disposed of the properties of the Company in liquidation, immediate steps shall be taken for disposing of the unsold assets of the Company in liquidation and thereafter to disburse the same amongst the secured creditors and workers of the Company in liquidation. ( 24 ). ( 24 ). AT this stage, Mrs Anand, learned counsel for the National Labour Union prays that the interim stay operating till today may be continued for some time to enable her clients to have further recourse in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the request is granted and the ad-interim/interim stay operating till today shall continue till 22. 3. 2002. .