ORDER 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 19-2-1997 BY WHICH THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN DISMISSED TWO APPEALS, ONE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 22-2-1991 AND ANOTHER AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 25-8-1994. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: LONG AFTER A WINDING-UP ORDER WAS PASSED AND THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY INCLUDING THE PLANT, MACHINERY AND MOVABLES, INCLUDING GENERATING SETS OF THE COMPANY-HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE LIQUIDATOR, THE APPELLANTS FILED A CLAIM BEFORE THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR CLAIMING TO BE SECURED CREDITORS. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR DISMISSED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN FILED BELATEDLY. AS AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE APPELLANTS FILED COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 1991 WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY ORDER DATED 22-2-1991. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR THEREAFTER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM AND ADMITTED THE APPELLANTS AS ORDINARY CREDITORS. THE APPELLANTS, THEREFORE, FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. IN THAT APPEAL SOME RELIEFS WERE GIVEN. HOWEVER, IT WAS DISMISSED BY THE ORDER DATED 25-8-1994 QUA THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANTS THAT THEY WERE SECURED CREDITORS. THE DISMISSAL WAS BASED ON SECTION 125 OF THE COMPANIES ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF A CHARGE IS NOT REGISTERED THEN THE CHARGE WOULD BECOME VOID AS AGAINST THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR. 4. IN OUR VIEW, NO PROVISIONS OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE 1951 ACT") IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 125 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THE 1951 ACT PROVIDES FOR SPEEDY RECOVERY OF LOANS IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN UNDER THE 1951 ACT AND/OR FOR TAKING OVER OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY CONCERNED. THE APPELLANTS HAD NOT RESORTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1951 ACT BEFORE THE ORDER OF WINDING UP WAS PASSED. THEIR APPLICATION TO THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR WOULD THEREFORE BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY A READING OF SECTION 32(10) OF THE 1951 ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: . "32. (10) WHERE PROCEEDINGS FOR LIQUIDATION IN RESPECT OF AN INDUSTRIAL CONCERN HAVE COMMENCED BEFORE AN APPLICATION IS MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 31, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING TO THE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ANY PREFERENCE OVER THE OTHER CREDITORS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONCERN NOT CONFERRED ON IT BY ANY OTHER LAW." 5. "32. (10) WHERE PROCEEDINGS FOR LIQUIDATION IN RESPECT OF AN INDUSTRIAL CONCERN HAVE COMMENCED BEFORE AN APPLICATION IS MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 31, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING TO THE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ANY PREFERENCE OVER THE OTHER CREDITORS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONCERN NOT CONFERRED ON IT BY ANY OTHER LAW." 5. THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANTS CANNOT NOW GET ANY PREFERENCE OVER OTHER CREDITORS, IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT. 6. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE. THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISMISSED.