Order We have heard both sides. 2. The company, M/s Ravi Hi-Tech Ltd., (in liquidation) was recommended to be wound up by the order of B.I.F.R on 8.7.2003. The matter was taken to AAI.F.R in appeal, which set aside the order dated 8.7.2003 and remanded the matter to B.I.F.R, vide appellate order dated 27.2.2008. 3. In the meantime, proceedings started in the High Court pursuant to the recommendation of winding up made by the B.I.F.R, vide order dated 8.7.2003. Apparently winding up order had not been passed by the High Court. 4. Subsequently, pursuant to the remand order, the B.I.F.R again recommended winding up of the aforesaid company by its order dated 14.7.2009. 5. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 6.11.2009, the High Court, noticing the order dated 14.7.2009 and also noticing that no stay order has been obtained from the AAI.F.R in respect of the recommendation dated 14.7.2009 made by the B.I.F.R, passed an order directing that the company be wound up. 6. Thus, the date of the winding up order by the High Court is 6.11.2009. The date of winding up order is important in liquidation matters as rights and liabilities flow from that date. Because the said winding up order has been after second recommendation of the B.I.F.R, the history of the matter before tile B.I.F.R or AA.I.F.R makes no material difference. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that recommendation regarding second order of the B.I.F.R was not communicated in writing to the High Court. 8. To our mind, this fact, even if correct, would make no material difference, in view of what is stated in this order. 9. When it is not disputed by the appellant that winding up recommendation has in fact been made by the S.I.F.R, and that no stay of such recommendation has been granted by the A.A.I.F.R, and that the order of winding up has been made by the High Court after the second recommendation of the S.I.F.R, there is no such illegality or irregularity as would call for interference in this L.P.A. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.