Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-This application has been filed under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 468 of the said Act and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, with the prayer that the respondent-Board be directed to make payment of the dues of Rs. 20,84,284 alongwith interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum and/or in the alternative direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate/District Magistrate of Mumbai for recovery of the amount aforestated along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum from the respondent-company and deliver it to the official liquidator. 2. Therespondent, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, is a trade debtor of the company in liquidation. The ex-directors of the company in liquidation submitted their statement of affairs on September 13, 1994. In Schedule II title as “trade debtors” enclosed with the statement of affairs the ex-directors have shown the name of the respondent which is appearing at No. 11 and a debt has been shown to be recovered from it to the tune of Rs. 20,84,824. The photo copy of the statement of affairs is enclosed with the application as annexure 1. It is stated that the debt has been shown by the ex-directors as doubtful but no details have been given in this regard. The official liquidator has stated in the application that in any case it is an actionable claim and recoverable from the respondent-Board as a trade debt. The official liquidator by its notice dated January 23, 1995, claimed from the Board that a sum of Rs. 20,84,824 is due to the company and the same, therefore, may be paid. The copy of the notice has been enclosed with the application as annexure 2. The reminder was sent by the official liquidator in August, 1996. A copy of the same has been enclosed with the application as annexure 3. The reply has been received from M/s. Little and Co., Advocates and Solicitors, dated October 7, 1996, on behalf of the respondent-Board to the effect that no amount is due from the respondent-Board on the contrary the company owes a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs for which it has already filed a suit in the year 1991 without having any knowledge of the winding up proceedings. A copy of the reply so received has been enclosed with the application as annexure 4. 75 lakhs for which it has already filed a suit in the year 1991 without having any knowledge of the winding up proceedings. A copy of the reply so received has been enclosed with the application as annexure 4. It is stated that as per provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Sections 528 to 530 read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, if any amount is to be recovered by the creditors the same may be recovered. It is averred that if any amount is to be recovered by the creditors the same can be recovered by proving the claim filed before the official liquidator as per law. The refusal to make payment, which is due to the company is not permissible in law on the pretext of the alleged dues. It is further averred that apparently no amount is due to be recovered from the company in liquidation by the respondent-Board inasmuch as admittedly the suit for recovery is still pending before the Bombay High Court. Making reference to rule 270 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, it is submitted that in a winding up no claim by the company against any person shall be compromised or abandoned without the sanction of the Court upon notice to such person as the Court may direct. In view of this position of law it is stated that the plea of having outstanding against the company in liquidation is not tenable in law. Further, what is stated is that a suit also cannot proceed against the company in liquidation without the leave of the Court. In para. No. 4 of the application, it is submitted that the official liquidator is entitled to take into custody all the assets and actionable claims to which the company appears to be entitled. The notice has been issued by the official liquidator to the respondent-Board and it has refused to make payment of the dues of company and as such it has become necessary for the official liquidator to move this application for appropriate directions. 3. On March 26, 1999, this Court ordered for issue of notice to the respondent. On August 5, 1999, Manish Bhandari, Advocate, put appearance on behalf of the respondent-Board. On his request four weeks time was given to file reply to the application. 4. The office reported on September 22, 1999, that “reply not filed”. 3. On March 26, 1999, this Court ordered for issue of notice to the respondent. On August 5, 1999, Manish Bhandari, Advocate, put appearance on behalf of the respondent-Board. On his request four weeks time was given to file reply to the application. 4. The office reported on September 22, 1999, that “reply not filed”. The matter was placed on board on September 23, 1999, on that day nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, the reply was not filed. The office reported on October 6, 1999, that “reply not tiled”. On October 7, 1999, the matter was placed on board and nobody appeared on behalf of respondent and the case has been adjourned. I find from the report of the Registry that the reply has not been filed on February 23, 2000, March 22, 2000, March 29, 2000, May 10, 2000, July 26, 2000, August 2, 2000, and April 1, 2002. The matter is placed on board today. Not only is the reply not filed by the respondent-Board but nobody is also present on its behalf 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the memo of application and its enclosures. More than sufficient opportunity was available to the respondent-Board, if it would have really been desirous to oppose the application the reply would have been filed, but this opportunity has not been availed of Not only this nobody is present on behalf of the respondent-Board even to make any oral submission also. 6. I find sufficient merit in the averments made in the application and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that merely because the board has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 75 lakhs against the company in liquidation in the Bombay High Court it is not the ground for the Board not to make payment of the debt of the company in liquidation. What was the suit is not made known to the applicant nor has anything been produced on record of this application by the Board. From the reply to the applicant’s letter sent by Little and Co., Advocates and Solicitors, on behalf of the respondent-Board I find that it has been stated by them that the company owes a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs for which a suit is pending. From the reply to the applicant’s letter sent by Little and Co., Advocates and Solicitors, on behalf of the respondent-Board I find that it has been stated by them that the company owes a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs for which a suit is pending. But after winding up of the company the suit cannot be proceeded with without prior leave of the Court and for this reference may have to the provision of Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under: “446. Suits stayed on winding up order.--( 1) when a winding up order has been made or the official liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or it pending at the date of winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose.” 7. From the document annexure 2, it is undisputed that under the order dated August 30, 1991, passed in Company Petition No. 5 of 1990, the company has been ordered to be wound up. From document annexure 1 a statement of affairs, I find that the non-applicant has been shown a debtor to company in liquidation to the tune of Rs. 20,84,824. 8. Though thesuit would have been filed by the respondent-Board, but it is undisputedly not decreed. Leaving apart it, it cannot be proceeded with further without leave of the Court in view of Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, the claim has to be filed before the official liquidator by the Board. After winding up of the company, whatever the dues are against the company in liquidation, no person can claim thereof unless his claim is presented before the official liquidator and it has been scrutinised and adjudicated upon and then only it becomes recoverable. The non-applicant even has not lodged the claim what to say to prove the same and it is not recoverable from the applicant. The application has not been contested by the respondent-Board and it has to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondent-Board Maharashtra State Electricity Board having its head office at Hongkong Bank Building, M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai, is directed to make payment of Rs. The application has not been contested by the respondent-Board and it has to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the same is allowed. The respondent-Board Maharashtra State Electricity Board having its head office at Hongkong Bank Building, M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai, is directed to make payment of Rs. 20,84,824 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum from due date within one month to the applicant official liquidator of MIs. Indo Engineering (Kota) Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation). The respondent-Board is further directed to pay the costs of this application to the official liquidator, which is quantified as Rs. 5,000.