Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. That present petition is for confirmation of sale of movable and immovable properties of the company in liquidation. 2. Vide order dated 12.7.2002, M/s O.N.S. Knitwear (P) Limited was ordered to be wound up and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as its Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has taken over the possession of the land, building, plant and machinery of the company in liquidation situated at Ludhiana and that of factory premises. 3. Vide order dated 11.08.2005, this Court permitted the Official Liquidator to conduct the sale of all movable and immovable assets of the company subject to confirmation by this Court. In pursuance of such sale notice which was published in The Tribune, Punjab Kesari, Dainik Bhaskar and Punjabi Ajit, respondent No. 1 Dilbagh Singh was found to be the highest bidder who has given a bid of Rs. 5 lacs. The Official Liquidator has moved the present application for confirmation of the bid so received. 4. Company Application No. 968 of 2005 was filed by one Shri R.K. Joshi. The applicant was permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 vide order dated 07.09.2006. It is the stand of Shri Joshi that he has paid an amount of Rs. 40.50 lacs in full and final settlement of the claim of Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, being a guarantor, and, thus, the said respondent is a secured creditor in terms of Section 140 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). It has been further pointed out that No Dues Certificate has been issued by the Punjab National Bank and that the said respondent has lodged a claim before the Official Liquidator as a secured creditor. It is also pointed out that the auction conducted is arbitrary and mischievous as the value of the property is much higher than offered by the highest bidder. He has offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs. 35/- lacs and has deposited a sum of Rs. 10/- lacs to show his bona fides vide order dated 23.02.2006. Thus, it has been pointed out that the sale should not be confirmed. 5. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 has taken up a stand that, in fact, respondent No. 2 is the promoter of the company in liquidation. 35/- lacs and has deposited a sum of Rs. 10/- lacs to show his bona fides vide order dated 23.02.2006. Thus, it has been pointed out that the sale should not be confirmed. 5. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 has taken up a stand that, in fact, respondent No. 2 is the promoter of the company in liquidation. He was also incharge of the affairs and business of the company. He has also pointed out that either respondent No. 2 or his family members are the shareholders of the company and, in fact, respondent No. 2 and the company are the one and the same entity. It is pleaded that it is a fit case to lift the corporate veil to know the true character of the company and respondent No. 2. It has been further pointed out that respondent No. 2 has paid amount to acquire the status of a secured creditor so as to defeat the claim of other creditors. It was denied that the value of the property is much higher than Rs. 5 lacs. Rejoinder has been filed by the Official Liquidator wherein it has been pointed out that the claim of respondent No. 2 as secured creditor cannot be entertained by way of averment made in the reply. Still further, it has been pointed out that since the particulars of the charge registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar, in favour of respondent No. 2 have not been furnished, he cannot be treated to be a secured creditor of the company in liquidation. It is further pointed out that respondent No. 2 has lost the right to be substituted as a secured creditor as this Court while granting permission to the Official Liquidator to sell the assets of the company has recorded the fact, on the statement of learned Counsel for the bank, that the bank is no longer the secured creditor of the assets and therefore, now respondent No. 2 cannot seek the benefit of secured creditor as the Punjab National Bank relinquished its charge and status as a secured creditor qua the assets over which it had the charge. 6. It is not disputed that respondent No. 2 was, in fact, the guarantor for payment of the loan availed by the company in liquidation and granted by the Punjab National Bank. 6. It is not disputed that respondent No. 2 was, in fact, the guarantor for payment of the loan availed by the company in liquidation and granted by the Punjab National Bank. As a guarantor, respondent No. 2 has entered into settlement with the bank and paid the entire dues payable to the bank by the company in liquidation. Therefore, in terms of Sections 140 and 141 of the Act, respondent No. 2 on payment of the amount on behalf of the principal debtor steps into the shoes of the secured creditor and is entitled to every remedy which the creditor has against the principal debtor; to enforce every security and all means of payment and to stand in place of the creditor. That was the view taken by this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited V/s. Punjab Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (In liquidation) and Anr. (2006-3) 144 Punjab Law Reporter 402. 7. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that such judgment is not applicable in view of the statement of the secured creditor before this Court at the time of grant of permission to the Official Liquidator to sell the properties. It is contended that on the basis of said statement, the interest of the secured creditor has come to an end and, therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be treated as assignee of the Punjab National Bank. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. Though it would have been appreciated had the bank disclosed the fact that it is the guarantor who has settled the claim of the company in liquidation, but even if the bank has not disclosed such fact, one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is respondent No. 2, guarantor, who has settled the claim of the secured creditor. Therefore, in terms of Sections 140 and 141 of the Act, as referred to above, respondent No. 2 has to be treated as the secured creditor. The order passed by this Court, thus, will not change the nature of the security and interest of respondent No. 2 in the assets of the company in liquidation. 8. The argument raised by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that corporate veil should be lifted to find out the true character of the principal debtor i.e., the company in liquidation. 8. The argument raised by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that corporate veil should be lifted to find out the true character of the principal debtor i.e., the company in liquidation. Such argument is meaningless inasmuch as the guarantor having satisfied the claim of the secured creditor is to transpose as a secured creditor only. The company continues to be in liquidation and, therefore, the Official Liquidator has to sell the assets of the company in liquidation. Mere fact that family members of respondent No. 2 were shareholders of the company in liquidation will not make the company loose its juristic entity. Respondent No. 2 had furnished guarantee to secure the loan availed by the said juristic entity. Respondent No. 2 has discharged his contractual obligations and consequently entitled to be substituted as a secured creditor. Therefore, respondent No. 2 is to be treated as a secured creditor having paid the Punjab National Bank in terms of the guarantee deed furnished. 9. The bid of Rs. 5 lacs given by respondent No. 1 is wholly inadequate which is apparent from the fact that respondent No. 2 has offered to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs. 35 lacs and deposited Rs. 10 lacs to show his bona fides. In view thereof, the sale in favour of respondent No. 1 is not confirmed. 10. The Official Liquidator is permitted to sell the properties of the company in liquidation in accordance with law. The amount of Rs. 10 lacs deposited by respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 23.2.2006 be returned to the said respondent after deduct-ing expenses on account of advertisement and valuers fee amounting to Rs. 90,646/- and Rs. 16,080/- respectively. 11. The company petition stands disposed of accordingly.