JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J.:- C.M.No.166 of 2007 The application is allowed and the delay of four days in the re­filing of the appeal is condoned. C.M.Nos. 167-68 of 2007 The applications are allowed and Annexures A-1 to A3 are taken on record while granting exemption from filing their certified copies. Company Appeal No.31 of 2007 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 3.7.2007 passed by the learned Company Judge, (‘the appellant-Corporation’) has primarily assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that it, being a State Financial Corporation, is governed by a special statute, i.e., the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter described as ‘the 1951 Act’) and having financed the company in liquidation, had a right to remain outside the winding up proceedings and it could not be equated with other creditors arid that even after the said winding up proceedings, it will be entitled to recover the interest from the company in liquidation. In short, the appellant-Corporation claimed a prior right as distinct from other creditors to say that the Official Liquidator could not alienate the assets of the company in liquidation and that it had a prior right to get its debts settled. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant­Corporation and have perused the order which has been impugned in this appeal. 4. Once a company has been ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator put in charge thereof, then it becomes the duty of the Official Liquidator to ensure that distribution of the assets takes place in pursuance to the provisions of Sections 529 and 529-A of the Companies Act,1956 (for short ‘the 1956 Act’). In our view, the appellant-Corporation cannot have any prior right to sell the assets of the company in liquidation. The right to sell under the 1951 Act becomes sub-servient to the proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator to distribute the assets amongst the body of creditors, an exercise which has to be undertaken pursuance to the provisions of Sections 529 and 529-A of the 1956 Act. 5. Besides, the learned Company Judge has noticed that the appellant-Corporation had not set into motion any proceedings under the 1951 Act and rather, it had participated in the liquidation as well as sale proceedings. 5. Besides, the learned Company Judge has noticed that the appellant-Corporation had not set into motion any proceedings under the 1951 Act and rather, it had participated in the liquidation as well as sale proceedings. Nothing has been shown to us even at the time of the present proceedings to indicate that the appellant-Corporation had initiated any steps to recover the amount due by resorting to the provisions of the 1951 Act. 6. Be that as it may, as observed earlier, the right under the 1951 Act is sub-servient to the proceedings initiated by the Official Liquidator to distribute the assets amongst the body of creditors, an exercise which has to be undertaken pursuant to the provisions of Sections 529 and 529-A of the 1956 Act. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. ----------------------