( 1 ) THE Official Liquidator has filed this report on 30. 05. 2003 seeking following directions from this Court :- ( 2 ) WHETHER this Honble Court may be pleased to ratify the action taken by the Official Liquidator for taking possession of Rajkot Office on 06. 02. 2002. ( 3 ) WHETHER this Honble Court may be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to break open lock of the premises situated at Rajkot and to permit the Official Liquidator to prepare the inventory of the articles lying therein and to sell the premises by public auction and advertisement. ( 4 ) WHETHER this Honble Court be pleased to ratify the action taken by the Official Liquidator for not taking possession of Regd. Office / Factory premises at Vapi on 29. 01. 2002. ( 5 ) WHETHER this Honble Court be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to take forcible possession of the office situated at Mumbai in light of what is stated in para 8 and 9 above after hearing respondent No. 3. ( 6 ) AS far as prayer (A) is concerned, the Official Liquidator has submitted in his report that he has deputed his representative at the Rajkot office of the Company in liquidation situated at Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot on 06. 02. 2002 for taking possession thereof. Nobody from Secured Creditors remained present. The representative of the Official Liquidator has put the seals over the locks already applied and thus symbolic possession of shop was taken. He has further submitted that after the said symbolic possession was taken by him, one Company Application No. 240 0f 2002 was filed by Saurashtra Sales Corporation in respect of the said premises seeking direction from this Court for returning possession of the said office premises. The said application was rejected by this court vide order dated 16. 10. 2002. O. J. Appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed on the ground of limitation. The said party has again preferred Company Application No. 231 of 2005 before this Court and the same was also disposed of on 04. 07. 2005 granting permission to the said applicant to file affidavit in this report so that the same may be considered at the time of disposal of this report. The said applicant has accordingly filed affidavit in the present report on 12. 07. 2005. 07. 2005 granting permission to the said applicant to file affidavit in this report so that the same may be considered at the time of disposal of this report. The said applicant has accordingly filed affidavit in the present report on 12. 07. 2005. In any case, the prayer of the Official Liquidator to take the possession of the said premises at Rajkot is hereby ratified. ( 7 ) AS far as prayer (B) is concerned, the same is with regard to breaking open lock of the premises situated at Rajkot and seeking permission to prepare the inventory of the articles lying therein and selling the premises by public auction after giving advertisement in the Newspaper. Before granting such prayer, it is necessary to consider the claim of M/s. Saurashtra Sales Corporation. Mr. P. J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the said party has submitted that the property situated at 4, Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot belongs to one Popat Karshanbhai Chauhan. The said property is a multi-storied building and the ground floor which consists of two Rooms admeasuring about 15 X 13 have been acquired by M/s. Saurashtra Sales Corporation in the year 1970 from its original owner. A lease deed has also been executed on 23. 05. 1970 by Shri Navinchandra Babulal Sheth, the partner of the said Firm on a requisite Stamp Paper and accordingly, the said Firm has paid the contractual rent @ Rs. 200/- per month. The property is situated in Ward No. 6 in Rajkot Municipal Corporation area bearing House No. 06/7. There are other tenants in the property and certain portion is in the possession of the original owner. The rented premises of the Firm is a shop having four shutters and two of each open on the east abutting Dhebar road and rest two shutters are at the back and above the two shutters at the front, a big sign board of the Firm was put. About 7 or 8 years ago, one of the Directors of Star Laminates had requested for permissive use of a small portion of rented premises by making partition walls within the premises and opening at the back side by one of the shutters. About 7 or 8 years ago, one of the Directors of Star Laminates had requested for permissive use of a small portion of rented premises by making partition walls within the premises and opening at the back side by one of the shutters. Because of the relations with the Director of the Company, a small portion out of the rented premises opening at the back side by one of the shutters was given for permissive use and a small sign board of Star Laminates Pvt. Ltd. was put near one of the shutters and the rest of the premises was continued in possession of the firm through the partner and other partners as a lessee of the original owner, namely, Popatlal Karshanbhai Chauhan. ( 8 ) MR. Kanabar has further submitted that the Official Liquidator has put his seal and lock on 06. 02. 2002 on the rented premises. He has sent the Official Liquidator detailed telegram dated 07. 02. 2002 to remove the seal and the lock. The Official Liquidator, however, neither complied nor replied to his request. The Firm has, therefore, filed criminal complaint before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Rajkot on 11. 02. 2002. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class disposed of the complaint vide order dated 03. 07. 2002 by observing that there may have been a mistake committed by the Official Liquidator while locking and sealing the rented premises but there was no intentional act on the part of the Official Liquidator so as to constitute an offence as alleged. ( 9 ) MR. Kanabar has further submitted that the said Firm has subsequently approached this Court for releasing the rented premises by removing the seal and lock by way of filing Company Application No. 240 of 2002. The said application, however, came to be rejected by this Court on 16. 10. 2002. The said Firm has filed O. J. Appeal against the said order. However, there was delay of 386 days and, therefore, separate O. J. C. A. No. 10 of 2003 in O. J. Appeal came to be filed which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27. 02. 2004. 10. 2002. The said Firm has filed O. J. Appeal against the said order. However, there was delay of 386 days and, therefore, separate O. J. C. A. No. 10 of 2003 in O. J. Appeal came to be filed which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27. 02. 2004. On having heard about the factum of filing of this proceeding, the firm preferred Company Application No. 231 of 2005 for declaration of the tenancy rights of the firm in respect of the shop situated at 4, Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot. The said Company Application has also been rejected vide order dated 05. 07. 2005 with the liberty to file affidavit in the present matter. He has, therefore, submitted that the Official Liquidator should not be permitted to sell the premises as applied for and as such, the Official Liquidators report qua the property at Rajkot requires to be rejected in the interest of justice. ( 10 ) SINCE earlier two Company Applications, being Company Application No. 240 of 2002 and Company Application No. 231 of 2005 have been rejected by the Learned Single Judge of this Court and since the appeal filed by the said party before the Division Bench of this Court was also dismissed as the delay in filing the said appeal was not condoned, this Court cannot grant the prayer made by the said party in its affidavit-in-reply. However, in view of the affidavit-in-reply and the documents attached therewith, the Court cannot grant the prayer made by the Official Liquidator in the present report for breaking open lock of the premises situated at Rajkot and permitting him to prepare the inventory of the articles lying therein and to sell the premises by public auction and advertisement. The said party has produced Certificate of Registration of the Partnership Firm showing the principle place of business of the Firm at Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot, notice issued by the Sales Tax Authorities showing the place of business of the Firm at 4, Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot, the Rent Note dated 22. 05. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot, notice issued by the Sales Tax Authorities showing the place of business of the Firm at 4, Chauhan Nivas, Opp. Masonic Hall, Dhebar Road, Rajkot, the Rent Note dated 22. 05. 1970 issued by the landlord, namely, Shri Popatbhai Karshanbhai Chauhan in favour of the firm in respect of the premises in question, Municipal Tax Bill issued by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation showing the Firm as tenant of the premises in question, rent receipts issued by the landlord in favour of the Firm etc. All these documents have not been looked into and the Court has no occasion to go into the merits of the matter on the earlier occasions. Since this Court is bound by the earlier orders passed by this Court, the prayer for removal of the seal and handing over the possession of the premises in question to the Firm, namely, Saurashtra Sales Corporation cannot be granted. It is, however, open for the said Firm to take up this issue before the Division Bench in Appeal against the present order as the Division Bench has not dismissed the appeal earlier on merits. ( 11 ) AS far as prayer (C) is concerned, the Official Liquidator has submitted in his report that he has deputed his representative to Vapi for taking possession of Regd. Office and factory premises. The possession of the factory premises and registered office could not be taken as the Company in liquidation has sold the premises in question to Leopard Investment Limited. A copy of Assignment Deed and other documents were produced before the representative of the Official Liquidator. In this view of the matter, he has not taken possession of the Regd. office and factory of the Company in liquidation at Vapi. On going through the documents produced along with the present report, the Court is satisfied that the Official Liquidator is justified in not taking possession of the office premises and factory at Vapi and hence, his action is hereby ratified. ( 12 ) AS far as prayer (D) is concerned, the Official Liquidator has submitted that he along with his assistant had been to Bombay on 15. 02. 2002 for taking possession of office situated at 95, Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai 400 003. The possession of the said premises could not be taken as it did not belong to the Company in liquidation. 02. 2002 for taking possession of office situated at 95, Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai 400 003. The possession of the said premises could not be taken as it did not belong to the Company in liquidation. The owner of the premises has produced necessary documents in support of this statement and the said documents are produced along with his report. He has further submitted that in order to ascertain the title of the above property, he wrote a letter to the Weldkor Laminates Private Limited, Mumbai the respondent No. 3 herein, dated 21. 10. 2002 to submit documents with regard to the said property. In reply thereto, the said Weldkor Laminates Private Limited has refused to furnish information. The information called for by him are required to prove the connection between the tenant and the landlord vis. a. vis. the Company in liquidation and Weldkor Laminates Private Limited. He has further submitted that all parties are common and they have failed and neglected to furnish the information. He has further submitted in his report that all the Ex-Directors of the Company in liquidation are related to each other and are staying in the same building and, therefore, it is a fit case to lift the Corporate Vail and permit the Official Liquidator to take forcible possession of the office situated at Mumbai. ( 13 ) MR. R. D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted on the basis of affidavit filed on 18. 03. 2005 that on 22. 10. 1971, Weldkor purchased Office building known as Weldkor House situated at 95, Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai (premises in question) along with tenants and their rights. The said sale deed has been annexed by the Official Liquidator along with his report which was supplied by the respondent No. 3. One of the Directors of the respondent No. 3, namely, Rasiklal Nyalchand Doshi, was already a tenant in the premises in question since 31. 10. 1959 before the respondent No. 3 purchased the property. The said Rasiklal Nyalchand Doshi was doing his business in the name of Doshi Enterprises. The memorandum of tenancy agreement has been produced by Official Liquidator along with his report. Mr. Dave has further submitted that the Company in liquidation having its Regd. 10. 1959 before the respondent No. 3 purchased the property. The said Rasiklal Nyalchand Doshi was doing his business in the name of Doshi Enterprises. The memorandum of tenancy agreement has been produced by Official Liquidator along with his report. Mr. Dave has further submitted that the Company in liquidation having its Regd. office at Shed No. 34/37, Plot No. 507/510, Degam Road, G. I. D. C. , Vapi Industrial Estate, Vapi was in need of office premises at Mumbai and, therefore, approached respondent No. 3 and by Rent Agreement dated 01. 01. 1980, the respondent No. 3 agreed to let out one Chamber on the 4th Floor being Chamber No. 401 to the said Company in liquidation on certain terms and conditions. A copy of the Rent Agreement dated 01. 01. 1980 is produced by respondent No. 3 along with its affidavit filed on 18. 03. 2005. The Company in liquidation continued to be in possession till 28. 12. 1995. Thereafter, by possession letter dated 28. 12. 1995, the possession of the office Chamber No. 401 on 4th floor in the premises in question was vacated by the Company in liquidation as tenant and the possession was handed over back to respondent No. 3, which was accepted and the possession letter has been duly signed by the Directors of both the Companies, namely, the Company in liquidation as well as the respondent No. 3. This possession letter dated 28. 12. 1995 was also annexed along with the said affidavit. Since then the said office in question was in possession of the respondent No. 3 as owner of the premises. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 has sold the entire premises situated at 95, Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai by Regd. Sale-deed dated 02. 12. 2004 for consideration as stated therein and copy of the said Sale Deed is also annexed along with the said Affidavit. Mr. Dave has, therefore, submitted that permission as prayed for by the Official Liquidator cannot be granted and the Official Liquidator has no right to claim any such relief against the respondent No. 3 in view of the above facts and circumstances. ( 14 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that the report of the Official Liquidator qua respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, improper and misconceived in respect of the prayer made therein against the respondent No. 3. ( 14 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that the report of the Official Liquidator qua respondent No. 3 is illegal, unjust, improper and misconceived in respect of the prayer made therein against the respondent No. 3. The Company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up by an order dated 29. 11. 2001 and on or about that day, none of the properties situated in the premises in question was occupied by the Company in liquidation and, therefore, the Official Liquidator has no right to claim possession of the premises in question. The Official Liquidator, without verifying the records, attempted to harass the Directors of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has serious grievance against the office of the Official Liquidator and the way in which honest citizens are harassed by misuse of powers without having any basis and reason, which is clear from the fact that on 15. 02. 2002, one Mr. J. S. Dave from the office of Official Liquidator came to the office of the respondent No. 3 at premises in question with the local police and introduced himself as representative of Official Liquidator attached to this Court and he told the Manager of the Company that he was directed by this Court to take possession of Weldekor House in the matter of Company in liquidation. In response thereto, the Manager informed him that this property in question does not belong to M/s. Star Laminates Private Limited. , nor has it been occupied, in any manner, by the said Company, but the premises in question belongs to respondent No. 3. The Manager also informed that one Chamber Office No. 401 on 4th Floor was earlier occupied by the Company in liquidation prior to 1995 and the Company has vacated the premises in 1995. Thereafter, the said Shri Dave took the Manager to ground floor ply-wood shop, which was run in the name and style of Doshi Enterprises and wanted to take possession of the said Doshi Enterprises shop. The Manager of Doshi Enterprises resisted the action of Shri Dave and informed him that neither Doshi Enterprises is concerned with the Company in liquidation nor this Court passed any order to take physical possession of their shop. The said Mr. Dave has prepared the minutes and obtained signature of the Manager of the respondent No. 3. ( 15 ) MR. The said Mr. Dave has prepared the minutes and obtained signature of the Manager of the respondent No. 3. ( 15 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that on 16. 02. 2002, the Official Liquidator along with Mr. Dave and two Policemen came to the office of respondent No. 3 and asked him to give in writing that the office of the Company in liquidation is not sitting in the premises in question in any capacity. Accordingly, the Manager of the respondent No. 3 had given in writing a letter to that effect. The Official Liquidator has asked the Manager to join him and took him to the office of M/s. Doshi and Shah Fin-Lease Pvt. Ltd. , the tenant in the building, and then Official Liquidator asked the Officer-In-Charge of the said Company to clarify as to whether the Ground floor shop, which is run in the name and style of Doshi Enterprises belongs to Company in liquidation. The said Officer gave in writing that it does not belong to the Company in liquidation. Mr. Dave has further submitted that the Official Liquidator along with his representative and two Policemen and one employee from Doshi and Shah Fin-Lease Pvt. Ltd. went to the ground floor shop of M/s. Doshi Enterprises. The Official Liquidator loudly asked everyone to quit the shop at once, since he has to take possession of the shop and stock of the material, so as to seal the premises for implementation of the order of this Court passed in Company Petition No. 163 of 2001. The Manager of Doshi Enterprises resisted the said action of Official Liquidator and told him that this shop never belonged to or belongs to M/s. Star Laminates Pvt. Ltd. , and for that purpose he provided all the documents. Thereafter, in the Chamber of the Manager of M/s. Doshi Enterprises, discussion between the Manager and the Official Liquidator took place for about 20 minutes and thereafter he came out of the Chamber angrily and asked the Policemen to shut down the shutters of the shop of M/s. Doshi Enterprises. The Policemen refused to do so and asked the Official Liquidator to come to Paydhuni Police Station with them and get proper order from Sr. Officer-In-charge of Police Station. The Official Liquidator asked him to go to Police Station with them. The Policemen refused to do so and asked the Official Liquidator to come to Paydhuni Police Station with them and get proper order from Sr. Officer-In-charge of Police Station. The Official Liquidator asked him to go to Police Station with them. The Police Officer-In-Charge of Police Station told the Official Liquidator that he was permitted to take possession of the property of the Company in liquidation only, whereas the Official Liquidator attempted to take possession of the property which belongs to other parties, which is not permissible. He further stated that if nobody is obstructing in taking possession of the property in question, then Official Liquidator may take recourse available under Companies Act and Police may not assist in such circumstances. In case, the action of the Official Liquidator is resisted, then the procedure is laid down under Section 466 (1) (A) of the Companies Act to approach Presidency Magistrate Court to take over possession. ( 16 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that the Police Officer-In-Charge also informed the Official Liquidator that he received in writing complaint from the manager of M/s. Doshi Enterprises against the Official Liquidator for asking bribe of Rs. 20,000/- for dropping action against M/s. Doshi Enterprises and for not taking over the possession of their shop. However, the Police advised the Manager of M/s. Doshi Enterprises to lodge complaint in Anti Corruption Bureaus office, since the Police Officer has no power to register the complaint. Thereafter, after reaching the shop situated in the ground floor, the Official Liquidator has informed the Manager of respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Manager of M/s. Doshi Enterprises for the fees paid to the advocate, since the matter was settled. The Manager of the respondent No. 3 has declined to pay any amount. ( 17 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that in the above view of the matter, this Court should take serious note of the conduct on the part of the Official Liquidator and his office to harass a citizen without any basis, without any notice and intimation in advance. It will virtually amount to cruelty to ask any laymen to shut down his running business without serving any notice and without any opportunity and that too, under the pretext of order of this Court. It will virtually amount to cruelty to ask any laymen to shut down his running business without serving any notice and without any opportunity and that too, under the pretext of order of this Court. It is nothing else but sheer abuse of powers or process and hence, this conduct deserves to be deprecated by taking strict action in this regard. ( 18 ) MR. Dave has further submitted that the averments and allegations made in para 6 of the report are not true and correct. They are absolutely baseless, ill-founded and devoid of any substance. The respondent No. 3 Company was originally incorporated on 26. 10. 1966 in the name of Industrial Fabrics Pvt. Limited. The said name of the Company was changed as Weldekor Laminates Pvt. Ltd. on 02. 02. 1977 after following due procedure laid down in the Companies Act. Fresh Certificate of incorporation was also issued by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay. Thus, it is an independent Company which has no relation with the Company in liquidation. Therefore, the Official Liquidator was deliberately trying to mislead this Court by creating story of lifting corporate veil without having any basis and material for the same. The Company in liquidation was having its Regd. office and factory, both at Vapi, having no relation with the respondent No. 3 and there is no material on record to make such allegations. There is no question of applying doctrine of lifting corporate veil. The Official Liquidator wants to have fishing inquiry in the matter so as to harass the innocent people. ( 19 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid submissions and the facts stated and averments made in the reply filed by the respondent No. 3, Mr. Dave has strongly urged that the prayer made by the Official Liquidator should not be granted. On the contrary, strict action must be taken against the Official Liquidator for taking the law in his own hands and harassing the respondent No. 3 without any reason. After having heard the Official Liquidator and learned advocate Mr. R. D. Dave, appearing for respondent No. 3 and after having gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 3 and the documents produced along with the said affidavit-in-reply, the Court is of the view that the Official Liquidator is not justified in asking for forcible possession of the office situated at Mumbai. R. D. Dave, appearing for respondent No. 3 and after having gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 3 and the documents produced along with the said affidavit-in-reply, the Court is of the view that the Official Liquidator is not justified in asking for forcible possession of the office situated at Mumbai. The documents produced before the Court unequivocally reveal that rent agreement was entered into between the respondent No. 3 and the Company in liquidation on 01. 01. 1980 in respect of Chamber No. 401 on the 4th floor having area of 9. 29 Sq. Mtrs. or 100 Sq. Feet or thereabout in House No. 95, lying and situated at Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai 400 003. On 28. 12. 1995, the Company in liquidation has addressed a letter to the respondent No. 3 informing that they are vacating and surrendering of tenanted premises, namely, Chamber No. 401 on 4th floor in House No. 95, lying and situated at Abdul Rehman Street, Mumbai 400 003. The respondent No. 3 had made it clear in the said letter that due to business requirement and various other reasons, they were not interested in continuing tenancy and keeping the said office. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 has sold the entire premises to Shri Hasmukh Jethalal Shah and Smt. Jayshree Ramesh Gala vide Deed of Conveyance dated 02. 09. 2004. In this view of the matter, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that the property in question was belonging to the Company in liquidation. ( 20 ) DESPITE this fact, it appears to the Court that the Official Liquidator has acted in a high-handed manner with the respondent No. 3. The fact stated and averments as well as allegations made in the reply, if they are taken at their face value, and if they are found to be correct, it is very shameful on the part of the Official Liquidator being a responsible Officer of the Central Government and being a representative of this Court to behave in this manner. The Court has never permitted him to shout at the business premises of a third party and ask the customers to vacate the premises on the ground that he wants to sell the said premises under the order of this Court. The Court has never permitted him to shout at the business premises of a third party and ask the customers to vacate the premises on the ground that he wants to sell the said premises under the order of this Court. One more serious allegation is made in the reply filed by Shri Indarmal Jayantilal Jain, the Manager of respondent No. 3 stating that the Police Officer-in-charge of the Police Station informed the Official Liquidator that the Police has received the complaint in writing from the Manager of M/s. Doshi Enterprises against the Official Liquidator for asking bribe of Rs. 20,000/- for dropping action against M/s. Doshi Enterprises and for not taking over the possession of their shop. These averments are made on oath which have not been controverted by the Official Liquidator by filing counter reply to this affidavit. Even if the Court does not accept the correctness of these averments, at the same time, the same can not be taken lightly. This also requires detailed inquiry and investigation. ( 21 ) IT is rather surprising that the Official Liquidator has accepted the claim of the party in respect of the property situated at Vapi and did not take the possession of the Regd. Office / Factory on 29. 01. 2002 on the basis of the document, namely, Deed of Assignment produced by the assignee, namely, Leopard Investments Limited. However, more authentic and convincing documents were shown by the respondent No. 3. The same were not accepted and the Official Liquidator has behaved in the aforesaid manner. The Court, therefore, does not grant the prayer made by the Official Liquidator in his report and he is not entitled to take possession, much less, the forcible possession of the office situated at Mumbai. This prayer is, therefore, rejected. ( 22 ) THE Court could have ordered to hold separate inquiry with regard to the above issue. However, this Court has already directed the Central Government to investigate the affairs of the office of the Official Liquidator over the period of last 10 years while passing an order in O. L. R. No. 61 of 2005 on 18. 07. 2005. This issue can also be looked into while undertaking such inquiry. Hence, no separate order of inquiry is made in the present report. A writ of this order shall, therefore, be sent to the same authority forthwith. 07. 2005. This issue can also be looked into while undertaking such inquiry. Hence, no separate order of inquiry is made in the present report. A writ of this order shall, therefore, be sent to the same authority forthwith. ( 23 ) SUBJECT to the aforesaid directions and observations, this report is accordingly disposed of. .