D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) COMPANY Application in C. A. 1352/2002 is by M/s Karnataka State Financial Corporation (in short the -'corporation'), who claims to be a secured creditor of M/s Span Projects (P) Ltd. , a company under liquidation and which had been ordered to be wound up by this Court in terms of the order dated 3. 10. 2002. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid application is filed under the provisions of Section 446 (1) read with Section 537 (1) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'act') praying for permission to take over the assets of the company under liquidation by the Applicant-KSFC in exercise of their statutory powers under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporations Act (in short the 'sfc Act') as also to take into their fold some of the assets of the company which are with M/s Elegant Rocks (P) ltd. , 2nd respondent to this application, who, it appears, had instituted a suit against the company under liquidation for recovery of certain amount in O. S. 15579/2000 before the City civil Court at Bangalore and had also obtained an order at attachment before judgment in respect of some of the assets of the company such as computers and oil filling machines. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Joshi, learned Counsel for KSFC, is that the 2nd respondent had seized some of the assets of the company by taking delivery of those assets through Court by filing application under Order 38 Rule 1 and 5 CPC in O. S. No. 15579/2000. He submits that though there cannot be any surprise if plaintiff can obtain an order of attachment before judgment, in the instant case, the plaintiff had also been permitted to take possession of the goods so attached and that is not permitted in law. ( 4 ) THE applicant/ KSFC had in fact tried to intervene in the proceedings in O. S. No. 15579/2000 and it appears that the Trial Court had passed an order at 15. 7. 2000 on an application moved by the defendant company in the suit inter alia praying for lifting of attachment and redelivery of goods etc. ( 5 ) IT transpires that the Trial Court had passed an order on 15. 7. 2000 directing the plaintiff to restore the possession of the attached goods to the defendant company. 7. 2000 on an application moved by the defendant company in the suit inter alia praying for lifting of attachment and redelivery of goods etc. ( 5 ) IT transpires that the Trial Court had passed an order on 15. 7. 2000 directing the plaintiff to restore the possession of the attached goods to the defendant company. But it is not clear whether attachment had been lifted or not it has been continued. ( 6 ) AS against this order, the plaintiff had carried the matter to this Court by filing civil revision petitions in CRPs 2555, 2556 and 2557/ 2000. These petitions were disposed of as per order dated 25. 8. 2000 wherein this Court justified the order of the Trial Court in the sense that the direction for redelivery of goods to the defendant company was confirmed. Further, an option was also given to the defendant company to execute security bond to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs in which event the attached goods shall be redelivered to the company. ( 7 ) IT is in the background of such developments, the present application has come up for orders today before this Court. I have heard Sri D. S. Joshi, learned Counsel for the KSFC, Sri Deepak, learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, and Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent. ( 8 ) FURTHER development to the order dated 25. 8. 2000 of this Court in CRP Nos. 2555, 2556 and 2557/2000 is that petition for winding up had been presented before this Court and that this court in fact passed an order of winding up in terms of the order dated 3. 10. 2002, that the official Liquidator has been put in charge of the affairs of the company and the Official liquidator has also taken possession of the available assets of the company and further winding up proceedings are pending before this Court. At this stage, the present application has been filed. The aim of the application obviously appears to be not only to repossess the goods of the company which had been taken over by the 2nd respondent M/s Elegant Rocks (P) Ltd. but also to take over the entire assets of the company in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 29 of the SFC Act and to take steps for sale of assets by associating with the Official Liquidator. ( 9 ) PERUSAL of the order of this Court in CRP Nos. 2555, 2556 and 2557/2000 indicates that the property of 1st respondent company had been wrongly ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff in o. S. No. 15579/00 on an application filed by the plaintiff in the said suit praying for attachment before judgment. This Court also positively approved subsequent order of the Trial Court by directing the plaintiff to restore such goods in favour of the defendant company. That there is further observation that on furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the goods are to be redelivered. It can only be understood that the property shall be redelivered on furnishing of security and cannot have the effect of rising of attachment also. ( 10 ) IT is the admitted position of the parties that security was never furnished and as such the proposed attachment continued to subsist but whether attachment continues to be remain in force or is lifted is the question. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 15579/2000 does not have right to retain the goods that he took into his possession pursuant to the order of attachment that had been passed by the Trial Court in the suit. With the subsequent development of 1st respondent company having been ordered to be wound up and Official Liquidator having been put in charge, he is entitled to take into his possession and custody all assets of the company under liquidation. It is also the duty of the persons who are holding any of the assets of the company to hand over or to deliver it to the Official Liquidator. If they are not doing so, then they are exposing themselves to all other legal consequences. ( 11 ) IT is in the light of this position, Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, prays for three weeks time to hand over goods to the official liquidator which the 2nd respondent had taken to its custody pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court in O. S. No. 15579/2000. ( 11 ) IT is in the light of this position, Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, prays for three weeks time to hand over goods to the official liquidator which the 2nd respondent had taken to its custody pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court in O. S. No. 15579/2000. ( 12 ) SRI Joshi, learned Counsel for KSFC, fairly submits that in view of the subsequent development that the 1st respondent company having been ordered to be wound up and the official Liquidator having been put in charge, it is not open to the Corporation to exercise its powers under Section 29 of SFC Act at this stage of the proceedings. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, request of Sri Joshi is that the assets of the company under Liquidation should be brought to sale at the earliest in order to realize and to discharge liabilities of the company in which event the KSFC is a secured creditor. The only apprehension and objection raised by Sri paras Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, is that handing over of the attached assets to the Official Liquidator and anxiety on the part of the corporation to effect sale of the assets immediately should not result in any detriment to the interest of the 2nd respondent particularly if these assets are permitted to sell away and the entire proceeds will be taken towards discharge of all the liabilities of secured creditor. ( 14 ) THE properties subjected to attachment in terms of the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC are one which is available to the decree holder to look for execution of the decree in the event of decree being not satisfied. Further, even such attachments are subject to prior charges if any existing on such properties before attachment is made. Admittedly, Sri Joshi, learned Counsel for the KSFC, claims that the KSFC has prior charge over the assets of the company in which event attachment before judgment which is still in operation in favour of 2nd respondent is subject to such prior charge. This aspect is disputed by Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, by contending that the attached goods were not the subject matter of any prior charge created in favour of the KSFC. This aspect is disputed by Sri Paras Jain, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, by contending that the attached goods were not the subject matter of any prior charge created in favour of the KSFC. These are all disputed aspects which can be considered and decided as and when situation arises particularly in the light of the provisions of order of 39 Rule 10 CPC. Further, as of now, the application may be disposed of as one not warranting any further orders except permitting the 2nd respondent to handover the assets that he had taken over from the 1st respondent during the proceedings in O. S. No. 15579/2000 to the Official Liquidator within 3 weeks. ( 15 ) THE company application is disposed of.