( 1 ) THIS application taken out pursuant to a Judge's Summons signed on 14th November, 2005 is inter alia for recalling an order dated 9th september, 2005 of this Court in C. A. No. 397 of 2005 connected with bifr Case No. 153 of 1987. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this application are briefly as stated hereinafter. ( 3 ) TATA Construction and Projects Ltd. , now in liquidation, became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the SICA. ( 4 ) BIFR recommended that the company be wound up whereupon the company was referred to this Court under Section 20 of the SICA. This Court, by its order dated 23rd April, 2005, directed that the company be wound up. ( 5 ) ON 13th August, 2005 the officials of the office of the Official liquidator visited the factory premises of National Aluminium Co. Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the NALCO, at Angul in Orissa, to take possession of assets of the company lying at the said factory premises. ( 6 ) FROM the report of the minutes of the meeting held at the said factory premises at NALCO, it appears that in course of verification of the assets of the company in liquidation, an old and used Crawler Crane was found kept at the said factory premises, of which one Rangara Industries ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the Rangara, claimed to be owner. ( 7 ) THE minutes record that in course of verification and reconciliation of the assets of the company in liquidation in the presence of the secured creditor, State Bank of India. NALCO personnel informed the representatives of the Official Liquidator that they had heard that the crawler Crane did not belong to the company in liquidation. State Bank of india the secured creditor had also not staked any claim in respect of the crawler Crane which did not belong to the company. ( 8 ) RANGARA made an application in this Court under Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for orders on the Official Liquidator to disclaim the said Tata 955 ALC Crawler Crane bearing the Serial Number J-3032. ( 8 ) RANGARA made an application in this Court under Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying for orders on the Official Liquidator to disclaim the said Tata 955 ALC Crawler Crane bearing the Serial Number J-3032. ( 9 ) IT was submitted that the Crawler Crane owned by Rangara had been taken on hire by the company prior to its liquidation, at monthly hire charges of Rs. 1. 15 lakhs, for execution of diverse contractual jobs and had been used for execution of the contractual job awarded by NALCO to. the company prior to its liquidation. ( 10 ) AFTER the company went into liquidation there were no business activities. The Crawler Crane was of no use to the company in liquidation. In the aforesaid circumstances this Court passed the order dated 9th september, 2005 disclaiming the Crawler Crane which entailed rent liability of Rs. 1. 15 lakhs. ( 11 ) THE Official Liquidator in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 9th September, 2005 made over possession of the said Crawler crane to the representative of Rangara, one Sri Hakkim, as will be evident from the minutes of the meeting held in the said factory premises of the petitioner on 5th October, 2005 in the presence of Sri N. K. Paul, Chief project Manager of NALCO. ( 12 ) NALCO has brought out this application praying that the order dated 9th September, 2005 of this Court be recalled. Admittedly, however, the Crawler Crane in question does not belong to NALCO. ( 13 ) NALCO has been claiming lien over the Crawler Crane in terms of the works contract executed by NALCO with the company prior to this liquidation. ( 14 ) MR. Mallick appearing on behalf of the applicant NALCO submitted that NALCO has a right of lien over all contractual materials of the company in liquidation lying at Angul in terms of the said contract. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, however, the said contract cannot and does not provide for exercise of lien in respect of property not belonging to the company in liquidation. ( 16 ) MR. Mallick contended that the Crawler Crane was not owned by rangara. Mr. Mallick submitted that Rangara had in its disclaimer application relied on a bill dated 25th June, 1984 and a letter dated 28th june, 1984 acknowledging receipt of payment, both of which apparently have been forged. ( 16 ) MR. Mallick contended that the Crawler Crane was not owned by rangara. Mr. Mallick submitted that Rangara had in its disclaimer application relied on a bill dated 25th June, 1984 and a letter dated 28th june, 1984 acknowledging receipt of payment, both of which apparently have been forged. ( 17 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Mallick drew the attention of this court to the fact that the bill as also the letter of acknowledgement was addressed to Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. with Mumbai-400 009 mentioned in the address, even though Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the 1990's, bombay had not been renamed Mumbai in 1984. ( 18 ) MR. Mallick emphasizing that the bill dated 25th June, 1984 and the letter dated 28th June, 1984 had been addressed to Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. with Mumbai written in the address argued that the bill and the letter had apparently been brought into existence at a subsequent date. ( 19 ) MR. Mallick also questioned the genuineness of certain consignment notes and challans pointing out that the Crawler Crane could not have been transported to the factory premises of NALCO in the year 2000 when the tender with regard to the contractual job was floated in the year 2001 ( 20 ) MR, Mookerjee appearing on behalf of Rangara submitted that the Crawler Crane had been disclosed as an asset in the Balance Sheet of Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. year after year since 1997. Mr. Mookerjee painstakingly took this Court through the balance sheets and insurance documents which show that Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. got the Crawler Crane insured year after year from the year 2000-2001 on wards. ( 21 ) MR. Mookerjee admitted that the bill dated 25th June, 1984 and the receipt dated 28th June, 1984 had subsequently been reconstructed. Mr. Mookerjee, however, argued that a company was not obliged to preserve original bills and receipts beyond the statutory period. ( 22 ) MR Mallick in his reply, pointed out the discrepancies in valuation ot tne Crawler Crane as disclosed in Balance Sheets. However, discrepancies in valuation do not establish that the Crawler Crane was not owned by Rangara and/or Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. ( 23 ) IT is true, as argued by Mr. Mookerjee that a company is not obliged to preserve original bills and receipts indefinitely. However, discrepancies in valuation do not establish that the Crawler Crane was not owned by Rangara and/or Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. ( 23 ) IT is true, as argued by Mr. Mookerjee that a company is not obliged to preserve original bills and receipts indefinitely. Rangara, however, made a motivated attempt to pass off a reconstructed bill as an original one. There is nothing in the bill to indicate that the same had been reconstructed and/or obtained for the purpose of proceedings. ( 24 ) THIS Court deprecates the conduct of Rangara in deceptively passing off a reconstructed bill as an original one. The fact, however, remains that the Crawler Crane in question was not owned by the Company in Liquidation. ( 25 ) ON the other hand, there were records to show that the Crawler crane had been hired by the company in liquidation from Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. The hire charges were Rs. 1. 15 lakhs per month. ( 26 ) EVEN assuming, as argued by Mr. Mallick the balance sheets of sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. did not reflect the correct value of the Crawler Crane, it cannot be presumed that the Crawler Crane did not belong to Rangara and/or Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. The Balance Sheets could at best reflect low level of business ethics and/or business inefficiency of Rangara. The fact that Rangara did not maintain proper records and inflated and/or decreased the value of the Crawler Crane with some ulterior intent does not make the Crawler Crane the property of the company in liquidation. ( 27 ) THE short issue in this application is whether this Court should recall its order dated 9th September, 2005 disclaiming the Crawler Crane at the instance of NALCO, who admittedly does not own the same, but is only claiming a lien on machinery and materials of the company taken to the factory premises at NALCO in connection with execution of the works contract to secure its alleged claim for damages against the company in liquidation. The alleged claim of NALCO has not been adjudicated. ( 28 ) MR. Mallick successfully pointed out the discrepancies in documents produced by Rangara. There is, however, not a scrap of paper to show that the Crawler Crane, in fact, belonged to the company in liquidation. The alleged claim of NALCO has not been adjudicated. ( 28 ) MR. Mallick successfully pointed out the discrepancies in documents produced by Rangara. There is, however, not a scrap of paper to show that the Crawler Crane, in fact, belonged to the company in liquidation. ( 29 ) EVEN before the company went into liquidation, the company requested Rangara and/or Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. to take back its Crawler crane. However, NALCO did not allow Rangara and/or Sita Lifters Pvt. Ltd. to do so. After the company went into liquidation, the Official Liquidator took possession of the Crane. ( 30 ) MR. Mallick's submission that this Court can only disclaim property of the company and not property of third parties under Section 535 of the companies Act, 1956 is not sustainable. ( 31 ) UNDER Section 535 (1) (b) this Court can disclaim any property which is unsaleable or burdened with onerous covenants. Property which entails idle rent and/or hire charges can most certainly be disclaimed. ( 32 ) IN any case, in view of Section 535 (2) disclaimer operates to determine, as from the date of disclaimer, the rights interest and liabilities of the company in respect of the property disclaimed but not affect the rights or liabilities of any other person. ( 33 ) MOREOVER, any person injured by the operation of a disclaimer under Section 535 shall be deemed to be a creditor of the company to the amount of the compensation or damages payable in respect of the injury and may accordingly approve the amount as a debt in the winding up as provided in Section 535 (7) of the Companies Act, 1956. ( 34 ) NALCO admittedly not being owner of the Crawler Crane in question lacks locus standi to maintain this application. The application for recalling of the order dated 9th September, 2005 of this Court is, therefore, dismissed.