F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla, J: This application has been taken out by the Official Liquidator, seeking for the following reliefs: - (a) to direct the respondents to pay Rs.7,82,312 being the amount due in respect of loan A/c. H.O.No.264 and H.O.No.265 respectively with interest and penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 7.9.1999 to 7.11.2002 amounting to Rs. 12,90,677 aggregating to Rs.20,72,989 with subsequent interest on balance of principal amounts of Rs.50,000 and Rs.2,49,312 from 8.11.2002 till the date of realisation; (b) to permit the Official Liquidator to sell the mortgaged property as per mortgage deed. In the event of non-payment of the amount due within 90 days from the date of order of the Hon’ble High Court, permit the Official Liquidator to adjust the sale proceeds of the property against the decreetal amount and further interest; and (c) to order for payment of costs. 2. In the report of the Official Liquidator filed in support of the application, it is stated that on a perusal of the records of the Company in liquidation and Statement of Affairs filed on 4.10.1999 by the President of the Company in liquidation, it came to light that the respondents are debtors of the company under the registered mortgage and equitable mortgage in respect of two loan accounts, viz.,(i) A/c. No.H.O.264 dated 17.12.1994 under which, a sum of Rs.50,000 was borrowed and (ii) A/c. No.H.0.265, dated 17.12.1994, under which, a sum of Rs.2,50,000 was borrowed. It is further stated that in respect of the above said two loans, a mortgage deed has been registered in favour of the Company in liquidation for a sum of Rs.50,000 and a promissory note has been executed by depositing title deeds of the schedule mentioned property in respect of the sum ofRs.2,50,000. 3. As per the Statement of Affairs and Debtors List dated 7.9.1999 filed on behalf of the Company in liquidation, the liabilities of the respondents was ascertained at a sum of Rs. 1,23,000 towards A/c.No.H.0.264 and a sum of Rs.6,59,312 towards A/c.No.H.O.265. It also carried a further interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the default committed by the respondents for repayment of mortgage loan. 4. 1,23,000 towards A/c.No.H.0.264 and a sum of Rs.6,59,312 towards A/c.No.H.O.265. It also carried a further interest at the rate of 24% per annum for the default committed by the respondents for repayment of mortgage loan. 4. In the C.A.No.2172 of 2000, this Court passed an order dated 24.10.2000, providing for a concessional scheme to all the debtors reducing the rate of interest at 9% per annum of simple interest on the principal outstanding from 8.9.1999 till 31.12.2001. Based on the said order, the Official Liquidator is stated to have issued a notice to the respondents, directing them to repay the amounts payable to the Company in liquidation. The first respondent in her reply dated 17.9.2002, while admitting her liability towards the amount borrowed under A/c.No.H.0.264, denied the liability in respect of the loan under A/c.No.H.0.265. 5. It was in the above stated circumstances, the respondents were shown as ‘debtors’ in respect of A/cs. No.H.0.264 and H.O.265 and since they failed to discharge the loan amounts even after the issuance of demand notice, the application came to be filed under Sec.446(2) of the Companies Act. 6. On a perusal of the back records of the present application, I find that this has got a chequered history. Earlier there was an order in this application dated 29.9.2003 which states that the respondents having failed to avail the benefit of concession rate of interest, by bringing down the total liability at a sum of Rs.4,23,577.10 from the present claim of Rs.20,72,989, coercive action was called for and accordingly non-bailable warrants were issued against the respondents. 7. Subsequently, the first respondent took the stand that the second loan of Rs.2,50,000 was not really availed by her, that the said amount of Rs.2,50,000 was by way of sale consideration in respect of two properties in S.Nos.145/1 and 145/2 executed by her father. In the light of the said stand taken by the first respondent, the copy of the sale deeds were called for, which disclosed that for execution of the above referred to sale deeds, the father of the first respondent, one Thiru Kanniappan received Rs.1,50,000 on 21.8.1995 and Rs.l,10,000 on 11.9.1995 respectively. The documents themselves disclose that the payments were made by cash. Those payments related to the property in S.No. 145/2. In respect of the property in S.No.145/1, a sale consideration of Rs.3,52,000 was paid by cash as disclosed in the document. The documents themselves disclose that the payments were made by cash. Those payments related to the property in S.No. 145/2. In respect of the property in S.No.145/1, a sale consideration of Rs.3,52,000 was paid by cash as disclosed in the document. Accordingly, an order came to be passed on 30.10.2003 wherein, this Court brought down the liability from 20,72,989 (which was calculated as payable upto 31.8.2003) to Rs.5,02,620. In the said order, the respondents were directed to pay the said amount by 11.11.2003 by cash and failing which, it was stated that coercive action would be taken to recover the money. Thereafter, since the respondents failed to pay the said liability as directed above, Non-bailable warrants were issued against the respondents which were also executed. 8. Ultimately, this Court passed an order dated 25.5.2005 which reads as under: “The claim of the administrator is yet to be adjudicated on merits. It is no doubt true that this application was earlier before a number of Judges of this Court. I find from those orders that the parties to that application were only negotiating on the claim and in the context, the respective learned Judges were directing the debtors to bring that money atleast and since they felt that the presence of the debtors have to be secured, non-bailable warrants were issued. Mr.Muthusamy, learned Administrator appearing for the company in liquidation would state that the claim of the Administrator had been accepted and that is why the debtors were asked to bring the money. I went through all the earlier orders and I do not find anywhere in the earlier orders that the claim of the Administrator was adjudicated and a finding was given one way or the other. I asked the learned Administrator to point out any finding as referred to above in any one’ of the orders. The learned Administrator is not in a position to show me any such finding. Therefore, it is clear that this application is still pending adjudication on the claim of the administrator. The respondent denies the claim. To avoid any further delay, I am inclined to give the following direction. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the file of the learned Master (since the debtors are disputing the claim) for evidence on both sides. The completed proceedings shall be placed before the Court on or before 31.3.2005”. 9. The respondent denies the claim. To avoid any further delay, I am inclined to give the following direction. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the file of the learned Master (since the debtors are disputing the claim) for evidence on both sides. The completed proceedings shall be placed before the Court on or before 31.3.2005”. 9. Thereafter the matter was posted before the Master for recording of evidence. RW.l was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked through him. RW.l was also cross-examined on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the first respondent examined himself as R.W. 1 and one Thiru M.Palani was examined as R.W.2. Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked on their side. After recording the evidence, the matter was placed before this Court on 23.8.2005. 10. The Official Liquidator and the learned Administrator, after referring to Ex.A-1 Mortgage deed Ex.A-2 Promissory Note, A-3 and A-4 Ledger entries, Ex.A-5 receipts issued by the first respondent for the payment of loan amount of Rs.50,000 and Rs.2,50,000 on 5.10.1995 and 17.12.1995 respectively, Ex.A-6 letter of ICICI Bank confirming the encashment of Cheque No.782248, dated 5.10.1995 for Rs.50,000 and Cheque No.782249, dated 17.12.1995 for Rs.2,50,000 respectively in favour of the first respondent, Ex.A-7 letter of the first respondent confirming the deposit of title deeds, Ex.A-8 letter of lien dated 19.12.1995, Ex.A-9 letter of authorization given by the first respondent dated 19.12.1995, Ex.A-10 series of receipts issued by the Company in liquidation dated 11.9.1997, 15.9.1997 and 28.9.1997 respectively in proof of the payment of Rs. 10,000 each and Ex.A-11 list of debtors, submitted that as against the above voluminous documents filed, there was no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the respondents. It is also submitted that Exs.R-1 and R-2 certified copies of the sale deeds dated 11.9.1995 and 16.9.1995 did not in any way answer the liabilities of the first respondent as debtor of the Company in liquidation. It was also pointed out that in the said exhibits, the sale consideration was shown as Rs.2,60,000 and Rs.3,52,000 respectively and that in Ex.R-1 itself, it is specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was received on 21.8.1995 and another sum of Rs. 1,10,000 on the date of the execution of the sale deeds and thereby the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000 had been paid in full. 1,50,000 was received on 21.8.1995 and another sum of Rs. 1,10,000 on the date of the execution of the sale deeds and thereby the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000 had been paid in full. Similarly, in Ex.R-2, it is recited that a sum of Rs.3,52,000 was received on various dates, viz., a sum of Rs.5,000 on 21.8.1995, a sum of Rs. 1,73,500 and Rs.28,500 on the date of execution of the sale deed. Ex.R-3 is’stated to be an unregistered Will of the father of the first respondent and even assuming the said document can be relied upon, it does not in any way disclose the discharge of the liability due to the Company in liquidation. Therefore, the plea that the respondents are not liable to pay any sum to the Company in liquidation is not true and the same has not been proved. On the other hand, the signatures found in Exs.A-1, A-2, A-5, A-8 arid A-9 are not in dispute. The said documents read along with the oral evidence of P-W.l cumulatively establish the liability of the first respondent as debtor and the second respondent as surety to the Company in liquidation. In such circumstances, in the light of the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence placed before this Court, it will have to be held that the debt due to the Company in liquidation by the respondents as claimed in the application is established and accordingly, the respondents are liable to discharge the said liability. 11. As narrated in the earlier part of this order, in spite of the various opportunities extended to the respondents, they failed to avail the opportunities to discharge the liability. In fact, in the order dated 29.9.2003 and 30.10.2003, a sum which is far less than what is due and payable by the first and second respondents were offered and yet there was no inclination shown on behalf of the respondents in availing the* concessions extended to the respondents. 12. The ‘winding up procedure’ prescribed in Chapter-Et of the Companies Act is a ‘special procedure’ and which is also a self-contained one. Under Sec.447, it is stated that ‘an order for winding up of a company would operate in favour of all the creditors and of all the con-tributories of the company as if it had been made on the joint petition of a creditor and of a contributory. Under Sec.447, it is stated that ‘an order for winding up of a company would operate in favour of all the creditors and of all the con-tributories of the company as if it had been made on the joint petition of a creditor and of a contributory. ‘Appointment of Official Liquidator and the powers of the Liquidator have been extensively stated in the other provisions in Secs.448 to 461. Under Sec.454, it is stated that where a winding up order is made and an Official Liquidator is appointed, a Statement of Affairs is to be submitted in the prescribed format which among other things includes the provision under Sec.454(d) the debts due to the company and the names, residences and occupations of the persons from whom they are due and the amount likely to be realized on account thereof. Under Sec.456(l), it is stipulated that where a winding up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, the liquidator or the provisional liquidator as the case may be should take into custody or under his control of the properties, effects and actionable claims to which the Company is or appears to be entitled. Under Sec.457(l)(e), it is prescribed that the liquidator of a winding up company shall have a power to do all such other things as may be necessary for winding up the affairs of the company and distributing its assets. 13. Thus, a conjoint reading of above referred to provisions, makes it amply clear that the object of a winding up proceedings is to ensure the derivation and accumulation of all the wealth of company in liquidation by ensuring the collection of all the amounts outstanding from the parties, in order to have proportionate distribution of such collection amongst the creditors according to their rankings. If such object of a winding up proceedings is to be achieved, it is imperative that any attempt from any quarter from putting spokes into the smooth running of the wheel is stoutly removed. 14. With the above objective of a winding up proceedings in mind, when the case on hand is examined, I am of the view that it will have to be held that the respondents are liable to pay the ascertained sum of Rs.20,72,989 with interest on the balance principal amounts of Rs.50,000 and Rs.2,49,312 from 8.11.2002 till the date of realisation. With the above objective of a winding up proceedings in mind, when the case on hand is examined, I am of the view that it will have to be held that the respondents are liable to pay the ascertained sum of Rs.20,72,989 with interest on the balance principal amounts of Rs.50,000 and Rs.2,49,312 from 8.11.2002 till the date of realisation. Since the liability was, thus, due from 8.11.2002 onwards, the respondents are directed to pay the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of the respondents failing to discharge their liability by making the payment within the said four weeks time, the respondents are directed to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property to the Official Liquidator within one week thereafter. In the event of the respondents failing to comply with the above directions within the stipulated time limit, the Official Liquidator and learned Administrator are at liberty to invoke Sec.477(7) of the Companies Act and execute the decree granted in this order for taking possession of me schedule mentioned property through the appropriate Execution Court within whose jurisdiction the schedule mentioned property is situated. For that purpose, the decree granted in this order shall be duly transmitted to the Execution Court situated within the local jurisdiction ofKancheepuram, viz., Principal DistrictMunsifs Court or Additional District Munsif s Court at Kancheepuram. After taking possession of the schedule mentioned property, the Official Liquidator shall take necessary steps for the sale of the property through public auction by calling for bids. The Official Liquidator shall carry out the above exercise andreportto this Court for taking further course of action. 15. The company application is ordered as above.