JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the company applications are inter-connected, hence are being decided by the present order. 2. Company Application No. 67/2007 has been filed by the applicant company u/r.9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking direction against Official Liquidator to hand over possession of the company assets on the premise that winding up order dated 28.7.2000 has been set aside by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.05 passed in D.B. Special Appeal-64/2000. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that once the winding up order dated 28.7.2000, in pursuance to which the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as provisional liquidator, has been set aside by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.05 in appeal preferred, the Official Liquidator is under legal obligation to restore possession of the company assets to the applicant and since the Official Liquidator failed to discharge legal obligation, applicant company has approached this Court by filing instant company application. 4. Counsel for Official Liquidator on the other hand submits that Official Liquidator has no objection in handing over possession of the company assets as prayed for but at the same time the expenses incurred in maintaining company property/assets by deploying security guards has to be borne out by the applicant company while the possession of the company assets being handed over as prayed for. 5. It has come on record that earlier one company application-38/2006 was filed by the OL in which it was prayed that expenses which have been incurred by the Official Liquidator for watch, ward and security be reimbursed before the possession of the company assets being handed over to the applicant company. The said application was decided by the Company Court vide order dated 10.8.07 and the Official Liquidator was allowed to reimburse the money from the funds of the company within four weeks. The said application was decided by the Company Court vide order dated 10.8.07 and the Official Liquidator was allowed to reimburse the money from the funds of the company within four weeks. It has been informed to this Court that against the order dated 10.8.07 D.B. Special Appeal-122/07 has been preferred by the present applicant and the status-quo order has been passed by the Division Bench, at the same time company applications-67/07 and 28/08 were filed by the present applicant company and in both the applications it was prayed that possession of company assets be handed over to the applicant company in which interim order was passed by the Company Court on 24.7.09 directing the Official Liquidator to handover possession of the Company's assets to the applicant company only after he makes the payment of the expenses incurred regarding watch, ward and the security. It has been informed to this Court that against the interim order dated 24.7.09 as well, a DB Special Appeal-16/09 has been preferred by the present applicant in which status-quo order has been passed by the Division Bench and both the DB Special Appeals referred to supra are pending adjudication. 6. In the instant application only prayer made by the present applicant company is that in view of the order of winding up dated 28.7.2000 being set aside on appeal being preferred before the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.05, there remains no controversy regarding possession of the company assets be retained by the Official Liquidator and it has to be handed over to the applicant company and the only controversy which appears to be as to who will bear the expenses incurred in respect of watch, ward and security of the company assets during the period it was in liquidation and also thereafter since the possession of the company's assets for one or the other reason could not have been handed over to the applicant company so far. 7. 7. As regards the interim order passed by the Court dated 24.7.09 wherein it was observed that possession be handed over only on expenses being incurred by the applicant company regarding watch, ward and security against which a DB Special Appeal-16/09 is pending adjudication, it will not be appropriate for this Court to further examine as to who will bear the expenses incurred but at the same time possession of the company assets has to be handed over to the applicant company which at present is in possession of the Official Liquidator. However, this Court would like to observe that as regards the expenses to be borne out either by secured creditors as observed by Company Court while disposing of company application-27/2000 vide its order dated 23.1.01 or by the present applicant company, it will be open for the parties to make submissions before the Division Bench where the appeal is sub-judice. 8. In company application-9/2010 filed on behalf of receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur who submits that company premises be unlocked and he may be permitted to value the assets/property of the company if the possession of the company is handed over to the applicant company while disposing of the company application-67/07. 9. It will be open for the present applicant who has been appointed as receiver by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur to value the assets/property and can proceed further in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly both the company applications-67/07 & 9/2010 stand disposed of with the direction to the Official Liquidator to hand over the possession of the company assets to the applicant company after preparing its inventory within seven days from today. However, it is made clear that as regards the expenses incurred by the Official Liquidator in watch, ward and security of the company premises, it will be open for the parties to make submissions before the Division Bench where the appeals-16/09 & 122/07 are pending adjudication and it will be open for the applicant in company application-9/2010 to value the assets/property of the company and proceed in accordance with law. 11. With these directions, company applications-67/07 & 9/2010 stand disposed of. No cost.Application Disposed of. *******