JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This application has been filed by the official liquidator on behalf of the applicant—M/s. Shivamoni Steel Tubes Limited (in liquidation), under Section 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking for a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,56,943 with interest on the sum of Rs. 1,81,205 at 12 per cent, per annum from the date of application, i.e., November 11, 1997, till the date of judgment and for payment of future interest and costs. 2. It is averred in the application that M/s. Shivamoni Steel Tubes Limited was ordered to be wound up by an order dated September 8, 1995, passed by this Court in Company Petition Nos. 49 of 1994 and 157 of 1992 and the official liquidator attached to this Court became the liquidator of the company by virtue of Section 449 of the Act. The respondent was having trade transactions with the applicant-company and as per the books of account maintained by the company and the statement of affairs filed by the ex-directors of the applicant-company, the respondent is indebted to the company in a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 towards trade dealings with it. As on October 1, 1989, the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 1,81,205 and the respondent is also liable to pay interest and the total amount due to be paid by the respondent is as follows : (Rs.) Amount as on 1-10-1989 1,81,205 Add : Interest at 12 per cent, per annum from 2-10-1989-to 31-10-1997 1,75,708 Notice charges 30 Total 3,56,943 3. It is further averred that notice was issued by the applicant to the respondent on March 24, 1997, calling upon them to pay the amount due and the acknowledgment has been returned with postal shara "refused" and wherefore, the application for the abovesaid amount from the respondent. 4. The respondent appeared and resisted the application by filing the objections statement averring that the respondent had no trade transaction with the petitioner-company and the respondent had transaction with M/s. Shivmoni and Company, Calcutta. 4. The respondent appeared and resisted the application by filing the objections statement averring that the respondent had no trade transaction with the petitioner-company and the respondent had transaction with M/s. Shivmoni and Company, Calcutta. The board had placed three purchase orders with M/s. Shivmoni and Company, Calcutta, to purchase seamless pipes of particular specification and payments have been made in respect of the seamless pipes as per the said purchase orders and the respondent is not liable to pay any amount to the applicant-company as they had no transaction whatever with the applicant-company and there is no cause of action against the respondent. 5. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant-company stating that the application has been filed in time and the objection statement filed by the respondent is liable to be rejected. 6. The matter was posted for enquiry. On behalf of the applicant, affidavit was filed by way of examination-in-chief by the paid assistant in the office of the official liquidator and he has produced exhibit P1, the register of sundry debtors and creditors for the year 1989-90 and got marked relevant entry as per exhibit P1 (a). On behalf of the respondent, the affidavit of P. Perumalsamy, working as Executive Engineer, Materials and Management, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has been filed by way of examination-in-chief and he has got marked exhibits R1 to R6 and he was cross-examined by the applicant. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parries. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the official liquidator submitted that in the statement of affairs submitted by the ex-directors of the company in liquidation, the name of the respondent is shown as a debtor and there is also an entry in the register of sundry debtors and creditors, which has been got marked as exhibit P1 (a) and the respondent is liable to pay the sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1, 1989, and the said amount has not been paid and wherefore, the applicant is entitled to order as sought for in the application. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that the respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1, 1989, and the said amount has not been paid and wherefore, the applicant is entitled to order as sought for in the application. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that the respondent is due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1, 1989, with interest thereon as claimed in the application and there was no transaction between the respondent and the applicant-company, which is under liquidation and the respondent had transaction with M/s. Shivmoni and Company, for purchase of the seamless pipes and payments have been made in respect of the said supply of pipes made by the applicant-company. 10. I have considered the contentions of learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the evidence adduced by the applicant and the respondent including exhibit P1 (a) and exhibits R1 to R6. Having regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for determination in this application are: (1) Whether the applicant has proved that the respondent was due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1, 1989, to the applicant-company and that the applicant is entitled to recover the said sum with interest at 12 per cent, per annum and notice charges, amounting to Rs. 3,56,943 from the respondent, as sought for in the application ? (2) What order? I answer the above points for determination as follows : Point No. 1 : in the negative Point No. 2 : as per the final order for the following : Reasons 11. It is clear from a perusal of the averments made in the application that the claim made in the application is based merely on the basis of the entry made in the register, exhibit P1 maintained by the company in liquidation and exhibit P1 (a) is the relevant entry, which has been got marked, which shows that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam, was due to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 1,81,205.03 as on October 1, 1989, as it was the opening balance as on October 1, 1989. Apart from getting the said entry marked, the applicant has not produced any material to show that the respondent was due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1,1989. 1,81,205.03 as on October 1, 1989, as it was the opening balance as on October 1, 1989. Apart from getting the said entry marked, the applicant has not produced any material to show that the respondent was due to pay a sum of Rs. 1,81,205 as on October 1,1989. The said entry would only show that as on October 1, 1989, the opening balance in the name of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam, was Rs. 1,81,205 and apart from the said entry, there is no other material produced to substantiate the contention that the respondent was liable to pay the said amount to the company in liquidation. On the other hand, the contention taken by the respondent that it had no transaction with the applicant-company and that it had trade transactions with M/s. Shivmoni and Company, is substantiated by exhibits R1 to R6. Exhibits R4 to R6 are the purchase orders issued by the respondent to M/s. Shivmoni and Company for purchase of seamless pipes and exhibits R1 to R3 are the details in respect of the payments made to M/s. Shivmoni and Company. There is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel appearing for the official liquidator that RW1, who has been examined on behalf of the respondent has admitted that the respondent was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,81,205.03 as on October 1, 1989, as it is clear from the facts elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that there is no admission made by him as contended by learned Counsel for the official liquidator and what is elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 is that the meaning of TNEB, means Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is the respondent in this case. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that he does not have any knowledge of accounts and he does not know what it means as mentioned in the debit column as per exhibit P1 (a). The further facts elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that the respondent has cleared the amount as shown in exhibit P1 (a) and he has no document to show that the sum of Rs. 1,81,205 was paid to the applicant-company, would not amount to admission that the respondent was liable to pay Rs. The further facts elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 that the respondent has cleared the amount as shown in exhibit P1 (a) and he has no document to show that the sum of Rs. 1,81,205 was paid to the applicant-company, would not amount to admission that the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 1,81,205 to the applicant as the facts elicited in the cross-examination of RW1 clearly shows that he has no knowledge about the accounts and he has only stated that the full form of TNEB, is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and has clearly stated that the respondent had no dealings with the applicant-company and that purchase orders were issued to M/s. Shivmoni and Company and not the applicant as per exhibits R4 to R6 and payments were made to the said M/s. Shivmoni and Company as per exhibits R4 and R5. It is well-settled that when the applicant makes a claim against the respondent, the same has to be substantiated by producing the relevant material. Mere entry in the accounts book submitted by the ex-directors of the company in liquidation, even without proving the fact that the same was maintained in the regular course by examining the person who had maintained the accounts, would not by itself per se amount to proof of claim made against the respondent. Apart from examining PW1, who is working as paid assistant in the office of the official liquidator, the applicant has not chosen to examine any person on behalf of the company in liquidation regarding the accounts maintained by the company and to prove the basis of the entry in the account books, exhibit P1 as per exhibit Pl(a) dated October 1, 1989. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has miserably failed to prove that he is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,56,943 from the respondent as sought for in the application. Accordingly, I answer the points for determination and pass the following order : 12. The application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.