JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J.—This application is by the official liquidator of the company in liquidation with a prayer to declare the sale of assets of the company by respondent No. 1, M/s. Kerala Financial Corporation in favour of respondent No. 2, M/s. Travancore Heaven P. Ltd., as void; to direct the respondents to hand over the assets of the company to the official liquidator, etc. 2. It is stated that M/s. Alliance Leathers P. Ltd., was ordered to be wound up by this Court by order dated December 1, 1999, in Co. P. No. 26 of 1994. The petition for winding up was presented before this Court on February 24, 1994. 3. It is stated that the building, plant and machinery and furniture of the company in liquidation was sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 for a sale consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs. Respondent No. 2 had remitted Rs. 10 lakhs, being part of the sale consideration on March 31, 1996. The sale has been confirmed by respondent No. 1 as per letters dated November 8, 2000 and September 13, 2001. 4. It is contented that respondent No. 1 has not obtained leave of this Court under Section 537 of the Act for the sale of the assets. Hence, the sale is void. It is canvassed that under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, the assets of the company are deemed to be in the custody by this court, with effect from the date of winding up order. Further, in terms of Section 441(2) the winding up of a company shall be deemed to commence at the time of presentation for the winding up. Hence, the date of presentation of the petition in the present case being February 24, 1994, it shall be deemed to be the date of winding up the sale which is subsequent is rendered void by virtue of Section 537 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 that it had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 28.30 lakhs to the company in liquidation as on November, 25, 1988. As security for the loan the company had mortgaged land measuring one acre in survey No. 97/3 of Kadungalloor Industrial Development Area and 2.50 acres in survey Nos. 97/3, 95/3 and 95/5, respectively, in the same area. 28.30 lakhs to the company in liquidation as on November, 25, 1988. As security for the loan the company had mortgaged land measuring one acre in survey No. 97/3 of Kadungalloor Industrial Development Area and 2.50 acres in survey Nos. 97/3, 95/3 and 95/5, respectively, in the same area. The company had also executed a hypothecation deed dated April 24, 1989 in respect of the plant and machinery. 6. It is contended that apart from respondent No. 1, M/s. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the KSIDC" for brevity) had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 47 lakhs and an additional loan of Rs. 31.70 lakhs. The said KSIDC is not made party to the present proceeding. It is further stated that KSIDC has a pari passu charge over the above properties in the ratio of 78.20 : 28.30. 7. The company in liquidation having violated the conditions of the loan transaction, proceedings were initiated under Section 29 of the SFC Act, 1951, as on March 6, 1993. An order was passed under Section 29 of the said Act as on July 1, 1994. The assets of the company were taken over on July 7, 1994. The same was brought to sale after wide publicity in newspapers. At the auction sale, the highest bid of Rs. 45 lakhs of Tony Abraham Kanady was accepted and a letter of acceptance issued as on March 1, 1996. A sale deed was also executed as on November 7, 1996 and a sale note was issued on November 16, 1996. The unit was handed over to respondent No. 2 on January 17, 1997. The sale consideration was appropriated by respondent No. 1 and KSIDC in the ratio to which they held a pari passu charge in respect of the assets. 8. It is contended that even after adjustment of the sale consideration, there remained an outstanding amount, which was finally settled by the company under a one-time settlement scheme. The account was finally-closed by the issuance of a certificate on March 29, 2001. 9. Hence, it is contended that the company having been ordered to be wound up on December 1, 1999, respondent No. 1 was totally unaware of the same, as it was neither a party nor received any notice. The account was finally-closed by the issuance of a certificate on March 29, 2001. 9. Hence, it is contended that the company having been ordered to be wound up on December 1, 1999, respondent No. 1 was totally unaware of the same, as it was neither a party nor received any notice. In any event, the assets of the company having been legally brought to sale in the interregnum between the date of presentation of the petition and the order of winding up, the same shall not be rendered void ab initio. This is especially so in the light of respondent No. 1 having exercised its power under Section 29 of the SFC Act. 10. Incidentally, respondent No. 1 has filed an application in C.A. No. 1358 of 2006, seeking this Court recognise it as a secured creditor, and its right to stand outside the winding up proceedings post-facto, to enable it to retain the sale proceeds by granting leave post-facto for the sale of properties and confirm the sale in favour of the second respondent. 11. It is stated that the charge created by the first respondent was registered under Part V of the Companies Act by both respondent No. 1 and KSIDC. 12. In the above background, the question for consideration is whether the sale of assets by respondent No. 1 is liable to be declared as null and void. 13. In the face of the official liquidator acknowledging the receipt of the statement of affairs filed by the company in liquidation as on December 5, 2000, bringing to his attention the fact of sale of the unit through respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, the present application filed as on June 20, 2005 (dated June 15, 2005) is belated. The delay is not explained. 14. It is hence a futile and an unfair exercise to hold that in terms of the law as laid down in Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Another Vs. The Official Liquidator and Another, AIR 2006 SC 755 , that the financial corporation could not enforce its right under Section 29 of the SFC Act without leave of the company court. As clarified in International Coach Builders Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator and Another, AIR 2006 SC 755 , that the financial corporation could not enforce its right under Section 29 of the SFC Act without leave of the company court. As clarified in International Coach Builders Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corpn., AIR 2003 SC 2012 , the Supreme Court has held that a right is available to a financial corporation under Section 29 of the SFC Act against a debtor, if a company, only so long as there is no order of winding up. In the instant case, the sale of assets having been effected well before the order of winding up, there is no case made out for interference. The application by the respondent in C.A. No. 1358 of 2006 is not necessary to be considered as the respondent has exercised its legitimate power. 15. The application in C.A. No. 511 of 2005 is dismissed.