( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan with learned advocate Ms. Bela A. Prajapati for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Bhatt for respondent. ( 2 ) PRESENT applications are filed with a prayer to recall the order passed by this Court on 1. 9. 2006 in SCA No. 18638 of 2006 and allied matters. ( 3 ) NOW this Court is considering the prayer made in these MCAs to recall the order dated 1. 9. 2006. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Chauhan appearing for the applicant " Official Liquidator submitted that this Court has passed the order on 1. 9. 2006 in SCA No. 18638 of 2006 in absence of applicant " original respondent No. 1 " Mr. D. D. Mori, Official Liquidator of Zalawad Ginning and Pressing Co-operative Society Ltd. He also submitted that present applicant " Mr. D. D. Mori had not remained present on the date of hearing when this order was passed by this Court on 1. 9. 2006. He also submitted that letter dated 28. 6. 2006 of liquidator referred in the order dated 1. 9. 2006 was not written by the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori to the learned Assistant Government Pleader of the office of Government Pleader and this Court has passed the order in absence of present applicant " Official Liquidator, without giving an opportunity of being heard. In short, his submission is that this Court has passed the order on 1. 9. 2006 in absence of present applicant and the applicant had not given any instructions to learned AGP to invite such orders from the Court and even then this Court has, relying upon the statement of learned AGP, passed the order which adversely affects the right of applicant. Therefore, present applications are filed to recall the order dated 1. 9. 2006. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Gaurang Bhatt appearing on behalf of respondent " original petitioner has field detailed reply against all MCAs. The averments made in Para. 8,9,10,11,12,14,15 and 25 are quoted as under: "8. I say that the original petitioner along with other employees of the Zalawad Gin have on 31. 7. 2006 preferred SCA No. 18638 of 2006 before this Hon ble High Court, and the advance copies thereof were duly served upon the office of the Govt. Pleader on 31. 7. 2006 itself. 9. 8,9,10,11,12,14,15 and 25 are quoted as under: "8. I say that the original petitioner along with other employees of the Zalawad Gin have on 31. 7. 2006 preferred SCA No. 18638 of 2006 before this Hon ble High Court, and the advance copies thereof were duly served upon the office of the Govt. Pleader on 31. 7. 2006 itself. 9. I say that the widow of the Manager, Anjanaben ACharya has earlier in point of time preferred SCA No. 1121 of 2006 before this Hon ble High Court wherein Shri Devjibhai Dharamsibhai Mori, the then Official Liquidator of the Zalawad Gin has on 22. 2. 2006 filed the affidavit in reply in the said SCA No. 1121 of 2006. I further say that thereafter again said Shri Devjibhai Dharmasibhai Mori, the then Official Liquidator has on 19. 8. 2006 filed the affidavit in reply in MCA No. 1712 of 2006 in SCA No. 1121 of 2006. I also say that the original signatures of the said Shri Devejibhai Dharamsibhai Mori the then Official Liquidator are very much on record of the said matter. I also further say that the said MCA No. 1712 of 2006 in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 was disposed of on 22. 9. 2006 by this Hon ble High Court. 10. I say that SCA No. 1121 of 2006 was disposed of on 28. 6. 2006 and the copy of the said order was also submitted by the original petitioners during the hearing of SCA No. 18638 of 2006 to 18648 of 2006 by this Hon ble High Court. I further say that a letter of Shri Devejibhai Dharamsibhai Mori, the then Official Liquidator dated 28. 6. 2006 was submitted during the proceeding of SCA No. 1121 of 2006 in personal presence of the said Shri Devejibhai Dharamsibhai Mori the then Official Liquidator of Zalawad Gin, as per information gathered from the reliable sources. I also further say that the Hon ble High Court was not inclined to act upon the said letter dt. 28. 6. 2006 of Shri Devejibhai Dharamsibhai Mori while disposing of SCA No. 1121 of 2006. 11. I say that the copies of the orders dt. 1. 9. 2006 passed in SCA No. 18638 to 18648 of 2006 were served upon the Official Liquidator, Zalawad Gin effecting the direct services thereof by the employees in the fourth week of September,2006. 12. 6. 2006 of Shri Devejibhai Dharamsibhai Mori while disposing of SCA No. 1121 of 2006. 11. I say that the copies of the orders dt. 1. 9. 2006 passed in SCA No. 18638 to 18648 of 2006 were served upon the Official Liquidator, Zalawad Gin effecting the direct services thereof by the employees in the fourth week of September,2006. 12. I say that the employees have in September,2006 preferred Caveat Application No. 3493 to 3503 of 2006 in respect of the said order dt. 1. 9. 2006 before this Hon ble High Court. I further say that thereafter also again the employees have preferred Caveat Applications in June,2007 for the said purpose. 14. I say that said Shri D. D. Mori was transferred in the fourth week of August,2006 to Bhavnagar and he was relieved from the charge on 2. 9. 2006. I further say that though the said Shri D. D. Mori the Ex- Official Liquidator of Zalawad Gin was not called upon by the higher authority for any kind of explanation nor any inquiry was contemplated or initiated against any of the Official Liquidator of the Zalawad Gin during the relevant period, still however, voluntarily and willingly said Shri D. D. Mori has in response to the said news item submitted the letter dt. 1. 9. 2007 to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Surendranagar along with a copy forwarded to Shri N. P. Rathod, the then Official Liquidator of Zalawad Gin. I further say that the employees have come to know about the said letter dt. 19. 1. 2007 in the fourth week of April,2007 when the affidavit in reply of Shri N. P. Rathod the then Official Liquidator has been filed in the contempt proceedings being MCA No. 379 to 389 of 2007. 15. I say that said Shri D. D. Mori has stated in his letter dt. 19. 1. 2007 that he has never addressed or written any letter to the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader nor he has consented nor agreed to provide 15% rate of interest in favour of the employees. I therefore say that the signatures of the said Shri D. D. Mori in the said letter dt. 28. 6. 2006 compared with his signatures in the affidavit in reply dt. 22. 2. 2006 in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 as well as the affidavit in reply dt. 19. 8. I therefore say that the signatures of the said Shri D. D. Mori in the said letter dt. 28. 6. 2006 compared with his signatures in the affidavit in reply dt. 22. 2. 2006 in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 as well as the affidavit in reply dt. 19. 8. 2006 in MCA No. 1712 of 2006 in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 undisputedly appears to be the same and still however it is the humble request of the employees that those signatures may be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and/or the hand-writing expert at the cost of the employees so as to have the experts opinion in this behalf. I also say that there are number of original signatures of the said Shri D. D. Mori in various correspondences made by him at the relevant with the employees of the Zalawad Gin and if it is so required and directed the employees will submit the originals to the Hon ble High Court. 25. I say that the employees of the Zalawad Gin reasonably apprehend and believe in good faith that the said Shri D. D. Mori and said Shri N. P. Rathod have colluded and joined hands with the blessings of the higher authority, with an ulterior motive to have an extraneous considerations from the unfortunate employees of the Zalawad Gin, through an unethical, immoral and unrecognized modus operandi. " ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan and learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Bhatt for the respondent. ( 7 ) ON 1. 9. 2006, on behalf of petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Sunil Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Bhatt and learned AGP Mr. L. B. Dabhi on behalf of Official Liquidator appeared. Copy of the petition was served to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi by learned advocate Mr. Mehta. Earlier also, advance copy was served on 31. 7. 2006. This Court has issued rule in the matter and learned AGP Mr. Dabhi waived the service of rule on behalf of Official Liquidator. Thereafter, submissions were made by both the sides and learned AGP Mr. Dabhi under the instructions of Official Liquidator had submitted that at the relevant time the society was going through acute financial crises and due to which the employees were not paid regular salaries. Dabhi waived the service of rule on behalf of Official Liquidator. Thereafter, submissions were made by both the sides and learned AGP Mr. Dabhi under the instructions of Official Liquidator had submitted that at the relevant time the society was going through acute financial crises and due to which the employees were not paid regular salaries. However, upon realization of the funds, the liquidator has released the unpaid salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner. He does not dispute that other creditors of the society have been re-paid their dues. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and considering the letter dated 28. 6. 2006 of Official Liquidator, simple interest at the rate of 15% from the date of amount due and payable to the deceased husband of the petitioner till the actual payment of the unpaid salary was granted by this Court and further direction was issued to pay such amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of said order. This Court has passed the aforesaid order considering the identical order in identical facts and circumstances passed by this Court in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 dated 28. 6. 2006. Considering the submissions of Mr. Mehta that this is an identical matter, order on the same line as was passed in earlier matter has been passed by this Court. This Court has passed an order relying upon the order passed by this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi,j.) in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 dated 28. 6. 2006. The relevant paragraph No. 3 is, therefore, quoted as under : 3. Learned AGP Shri Gori under the instructions of Official Liquidator Shri Mori who is present in the Court submitted that at the relevant time the Society was going through acute financial crises due to which the employees were not paid regular salaries. However upon realisation of the funds the liquidator has released the unpaid salary of the husband of the petitioner. He does not dispute that other creditors of the society have been repaid their dues. 7. 1 This Court is also having on record a xerox copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 addressed to learned AGP, Gujarat High Court which bears the signature of Mr. D. D. Mori. The said letter is not pertaining to Mrs. He does not dispute that other creditors of the society have been repaid their dues. 7. 1 This Court is also having on record a xerox copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 addressed to learned AGP, Gujarat High Court which bears the signature of Mr. D. D. Mori. The said letter is not pertaining to Mrs. Anjanaben A. Acharya only but a general decision has been taken sympathetically to grant 15% interest and accordingly statement was made by learned AGP Mr. Dabhi on behalf of Official Liquidator after having the instructions to that effect from Official Liquidator. Accordingly, this Court has passed the order. Along with the original papers, there is a xerox copy of the said letter dated 28. 6. 2006. Therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. D. G. Chauhan that this order is passed by this Court without giving opportunity of hearing to Official Liquidator is incorrect and wrong. The contention of learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that learned AGP Mr. Dabhi has made his statement without having instructions from the Official Liquidator is also incorrect and wrong. The xerox copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 which is on record is enough to suggest that learned AGP Mr. Dabhi was having the instructions from Official Liquidator along with the copy of the letter dated 28. 6. 2006 which bears the signature of Shri D. D. Mori. Therefore, this Court has passed the order on 1. 9. 2006 after giving reasonable opportunity to Official Liquidator and, therefore, the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise and, hence, the prayer made in these applications to recall the order dated 1. 9. 2006 cannot be granted. ( 8 ) IT is necessary to note here the conduct of Official Liquidator. The liquidator has, by letter dated 19. 1. 2007, addressed to District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Surendranagar, in respect of news published in Navkar Weekly at page-40 specifically denied his presence on 1. 9. 2006 and also denied to have given instructions to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and ignorance has been placed on record. Not only that, but a specific contention was raised by Official Liquidator that no such letter dated 28. 6. 2006 was written by him to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and no such instructions were given to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi by him. Dabhi and ignorance has been placed on record. Not only that, but a specific contention was raised by Official Liquidator that no such letter dated 28. 6. 2006 was written by him to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and no such instructions were given to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi by him. This denial suggests that Official Liquidator wants to avoid liability, responsibility and adverse consequences. The affidavit filed by present Official Liquidator in support of condonation of delay in filing MCAs, the details are given by present Official Liquidator. But if the Official Liquidator was right that no such letter dated 28. 6. 2006 was ever handed over to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and no instructions were given to him to make a statement before the Court, and this Court has passed the order without his instructions and in absence of letter dated 28. 6. 2006, after passing of the order by this Court he would have immediately approached this Court. But Official Liquidator has not written the letter after receiving a copy of order dated 1. 9. 2006 to learned Government Pleader / learned AGP Mr. Dabhi inquiring as to on what basis the statement was made by him as no instructions were given by him to learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and no copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 was given by him and in that case, he must have filed complaint to the learned Government Pleader against the conduct of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi. But no such letter was written by him to the Government Pleader complaining the conduct of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and he remained silent upto 19. 1. 2007 when in weekly Navkar news was published which was compelled him to give answer to District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Surendranagar. Therefore, the conduct of Official Liquidator Mr. Mori is doubtful. He misused and abused the process of law and Court. Not only that, but he impliedly made the allegations against the Court as if this Court has passed the order in absence of Official Liquidator and his lawyer. Such efforts made by Official Liquidator Mr. Mori are serious in nature and necessary contempt proceedings must have to be initiated against such Official Liquidator, who has made allegations against learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and misguided this Court. Such efforts made by Official Liquidator Mr. Mori are serious in nature and necessary contempt proceedings must have to be initiated against such Official Liquidator, who has made allegations against learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and misguided this Court. According to the decision of Apex Court if any such question arises, then whatever documents are there on the record of the Court, they are to be considered as conclusive and affidavit of the lawyer or party should not have to be taken into account. According to the record of the case, it is conclusive that this Court is having the xerox copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 and learned AGP Mr. Dabhi had also appeared on behalf of Official Liquidator and on that basis, this Court has passed the order. Therefore, this Court has not passed the order in absence of Official Liquidator and his lawyer. The Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in case the State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and anr. reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249 . Relevant observations are in Para. 4 to 7, which are quoted as under : "4. When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A. K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submission made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of Judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136 ). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. (Per Lord Atkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136 ). We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still, fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chandrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30 ). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment. 4-A. In R. v. Mellor (1858) 7 Cox CC 454 Martin B was reported to have said : "we must consider the statement of the learned judge as absolute verity and we ought to take. his statement precisely as a record and act on it in the same manner as on a record of Court which of itself implies an absolute verity. " 5. In King. Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose, (1924) 28 Cal WN 170 : (AIR 1924 Cal 257) (FB), Page, J. said. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . " 5. In King. Emperor v. Barendra Kumar Ghose, (1924) 28 Cal WN 170 : (AIR 1924 Cal 257) (FB), Page, J. said. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . these proceedings emphasise the importance of rigidly maintaining the rule that a statement by a learned Judge as to what took place during the course of a trial before him is final and decisive; it is not to be criticised or circumvented; much less is it to be exposed to animad version. " 6. In Sarat Chandra v. Bibhabati Debi (1921) 34 Cal LJ 302 : (AIR 1921 Cal 584), Sir Asutosh Mookherjee explained what had to be done : "it is plain that in cases of this character where a litigant feels aggrieved by the statement in a judgment that an admission has been made, the most convenient and satisfactory course to follow, wherever practicable, is to apply to the Judge, without delay and ask for rectification or review of the judgment". 7. So the Judges record is conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge, himself, but nowhere else. " 8. 1 The order was passed by this Court on 1. 9. 2006 and present applications are filed on 25. 6. 2007 after a period of nine months and no immediate steps have been taken by the applicant. These applications have been filed after receiving notice from contempt Bench just with a view to create false defence by mis-using the process of Court. The order dated 1. 9. 2006 is not challenged in higher forum and no stay has been obtained, if applicant was right in his defence. ( 9 ) WHEN this Court has passed the order in presence of lawyers of both the sides, who were having instructions from their respective parties and on the basis of their statements and relying upon such advocates and record of this Court, filing of such kind of applications to recall the order itself is very embarrassing to the Court because by such applications the applicant has approached this Court as if the Court has committed something wrong while passing the order dated 1. 9. 2006. When the applicant Official Liquidator Mr. 9. 2006. When the applicant Official Liquidator Mr. D. D. Mori himself is wrong, misguided the Court, misused the process of Court, just to save the personal skin or service from adverse circumstances, this Court is put in an embarrassing situation to such an extent. If such type of attempts are made by the party, the Court should not have to tolerate them. Therefore, according to my opinion, the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori is responsible for such a serious act of misguiding the Court, misusing the process of law and without verifying the record, believed that he is to be true and not respected the dignity of the Court and making allegations that this Court has passed the order in absence of Official Liquidator Mr. Mori which amounts to violattion of the principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) IF the learned advocates for the Official Liquidator were right in their submissions, it is not understood as to why both the lawyers appearing on behalf of Official Liquidator, asked a simple question to their client that if learned AGP Mr. Dabhi has made incorrect statement without the instructions, then why immediately complaint is not filed by him against learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and why not a complaint was made to learned Government Pleader about the aforesaid conduct of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi. There is nothing on record to point out that some steps have been taken by Official Liquidator against learned AGP Mr. Dabhi. The Official Liquidator remained silent about the conduct of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi because he cannot challenge said conduct of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi for the reason that he had remained present on the date of hearing on 1. 9. 2006 and after receiving the instructions from Official Liquidator Mr. Mori, the submissions were made by learned AGP Mr. Dabhi and thereafter, this Court has passed the order in presence of both the learned advocates. Therefore, the stand taken by Official Liquidator is false, afterthought, got-up to save himself from facing the drastic action by the department. ( 11 ) IT is also important that order dated 1. 9. 2006 was received by the Official Liquidator on 26. 9. 2006 but immediately no application for recall was filed by Official Liquidator Mr. Mori before this Court but in stead of that the said decision was challenged in LPA. ( 11 ) IT is also important that order dated 1. 9. 2006 was received by the Official Liquidator on 26. 9. 2006 but immediately no application for recall was filed by Official Liquidator Mr. Mori before this Court but in stead of that the said decision was challenged in LPA. If the Official Liquidator was right that aforesaid order dated 1. 9. 2006 was passed in his absence and the learned AGP Mr. Dabhi had made statement before the Court without his instructions, he would have immediately rushed to this Court by filing necessary application to recall the order dated 1. 9. 2006. But no such steps have been taken immediately by the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori because he was aware about real fact and, therefore, he was not able to file such application subsequently. According to averments made in the affidavit filed by the present respondent, the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori had remained on that post upto 2. 9. 2006. Thereafter, he left the charge as Official Liquidator. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court, this Court is very clear about the facts that the order dated 1. 9. 2006 was passed by this Court in presence of learned AGP Mr. Dabhi after receiving a copy of letter dated 28. 6. 2006 which is even today also on record with the original file and after considering the submissions made by both the learned advocates and keeping in mind the identical order passed by this Court (Coram : Akil Kureshi,j.) in SCA No. 1121 of 2006 on 28. 6. 2006. No details as to what happened to the order in SCA No. 1121 of 2006, whether any recall application was filed therein or not and whether the order was recalled by this Court (Coram : Mr. Akil Kureshi,j.) or not, were given by the Official Liquidator to this Court. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer made in these applications cannot be granted. There is no error committed by this Court while passing the order dated 1. 9. 2006 which requires recalling of the order dated 1. 9. 2006. The order passed by this Court is legal and valid. If the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori is aggrieved by this order, he has right to challenge the same before appellate forum. There is no error committed by this Court while passing the order dated 1. 9. 2006 which requires recalling of the order dated 1. 9. 2006. The order passed by this Court is legal and valid. If the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori is aggrieved by this order, he has right to challenge the same before appellate forum. So the remedy is available to the applicant Official Liquidator. But one fact is very clear that Official Liquidator Mr. Mori has misused and abused the process of law by filing such applications and making such incorrect statements in letter dated 19. 1. 2007. Therefore, the Official Liquidator has committed a clear case of contempt by putting the Court in such a embarrassing situation as if this Court has committed something wrong. Therefore, the Head of the Department where the Official Liquidator Mr. Mori is working, is directed to take appropriate departmental action against him, so that in future he will remain careful in court proceeding while discharging his duties. ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations and directions, present applications filed by Official Liquidator are dismissed with cost of Rs. 1000/- in each application.