JUDGEMENT 1. I. A. No.3333 of 2004 (Flag-22) has been filed on behalf of the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation on 12.7.2004 for sanctioning the scheme as proposed in paragraph 16 of the application and for recalling the order of restraint passed against the company. 2. I.A. No. 5257 of 2007 (Flag-38) has been filed on behalf of the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation for accepting the proposal of Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation as made in paragraph 7 of the application with regard to stay of winding up proceeding and permitting the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation to start its functioning after coming into possession of the properties of the Company and to settle the claim of the depositors. 3. It transpires from the records of this case that Ex-Management of the Company in Liquidation on earlier occasion also filed similar application dated 3.3.2004 (Flag-17) and supplementary affidavit dated 5.4.2004 (Flag-21) for exactly same reliefs. The said application and supplementary affidavit were considered in detail by this court on 7.5.2004 and after considering the claim raised in the said application and affidavit (Flag-17 and Flag-21) found that the Ex-Management of the Company should show its bona fide before making any such claim which they had failed to do and hence the said application alongwith supplementary affidavit at Flags 17 and 21 were disposed of without heeding to the request of the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation. 4. However, when the matter of winding up was taken up by a Bench of this Court on 21.12.2006 it considered the entire matter in detail after hearing all the parties concerned and after perusing the materials on record as well as specific provisions of law and came to clear conclusion that the company is in a financial mess and is unable to pay its debts and should be wound up in public interest and hence the order of winding up was passed and the Official Liquidator, attached to Patna High Court, who was earlier appointed as provisional liquidator of the company vide order dated 8.10.1999, was appointed as Liquidator of the Company and was directed to take necessary action as provided under the Companies Act, 1956 in that regard. 5. 5. It may be noted that the said order of winding up dated 21.12.2006 was challenged by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation in Company Appeal No. 3 of 2007 which was subsequently withdrawn on 10.9.2008 and hence the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2006 attained finality. 6. The aforesaid order dated 21.12.2006 and the findings given by the then Honble Company Judge speaks volume about the conduct of the Ex-Management. In addition to that the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation has failed to provide any material to raise the confidence of the court in it. It may be noted here that an opportunity was given to the Ex-Management but they failed to comply within time the orders of this court dated 5.10.2004 and 5.11.2004 by which Rs. 1.20 Crores were directed to be deposited with the Official Liquidator in three monthly instalments in November, 2004, December, 2004 and January, 2005, but they deposited the first instalment in November, 2004, second instalment in March, 2008 and the third instalment in August, 2008. So instead of depositing the said money in three instalments within three months, the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation could pay the said amount in over three years. 7. So far the question raised by the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation with regard to maintainability of this company petition is concerned, learned counsel for the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation has stated that the matter was pending before the Company Law Board where a scheme was placed on 7.10.1999 in presence of the representative of the Reserve Bank of India which was a party before the Company Law Board, but in spite of that Reserve Bank of India filed the instant company petition for winding up the company and obtained an ex parte order dated 8.10.1999 by which the company petition was admitted, notices were issued to the respondents and the Official Liquidator was appointed as Provisional Liquidator for immediate steps to take possession of the assets of the company etc. 8. The said contentions of the learned counsel of the Ex-Management does not appear to be correct as the instant company petition was filed on 27.8.1999, i.e. several months before the Company Law Board passed its order with regard to scheme on 7.10.1999. 8. The said contentions of the learned counsel of the Ex-Management does not appear to be correct as the instant company petition was filed on 27.8.1999, i.e. several months before the Company Law Board passed its order with regard to scheme on 7.10.1999. In the said circumstances, the Company Judge was quite justified in considering the matter and passing its order dated 8.10.1999 which followed the subsequent orders, including the order of winding up. It further transpires from order dated 8.10.1999 that the court had no information about any scheme of the Company Law Board dated 7.10.1999. It also transpires that the Company Law Board had no knowledge or information about the pendency of the instant company petition, otherwise no such order would have been passed by the Company Law Board. Thus this plea taken by the learned counsel for the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation also fails. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances this court does not find it beneficial for the company in liquidation or for its creditors or depositors to allow the said applications of the Ex-Management of the Company in liquidation and furthermore there being no merit in these applications (Flags- 22 & 38), they are hereby dismissed.