JUDGMENT 1. AS facts and legal issues involved are similar, the judgment in this application (C.A. No. 123 of 2011) will also govern and is to be treated as the judgment in the other two applications being C.A. No. 124 of 2011 and C.A. No. 125 of 2011. 2. A Company A. Talukdar and Company (Fertilizers) Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be wound up by this Court, on 9th November, 1998, on an application filed by Indian Potash Ltd., numbered as CP. No. 12 of 1998. On 16th July, 2010 on a letter for direction taken out by the Official Liquidator, I gave him leave to sell the properties of the Company in liquidation on "as is where is basis". 3. SOMETIME in 2010 the contributories of the Company took out an application (C.A. No. 657 of 2010) under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 for revival of this Company and for vacation of the order of winding up. That application came up for consideration before me on 6th September, 2010. It was recorded by me in an order passed on the same day that the only real claimant against the Company was the secured creditor bank, namely, United Bank of India. The other claimant was the petitioning creditor at whose instance, the Company had been wound up, on a claim of about Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was said on behalf of the contributories that the claim of the secured creditor of Rs. 72,00,000/- had been satisfied by payment by bank draft. The petitioning creditor had also been paid, by a bank draft for Rs. 8,01,122/-. It was submitted on behalf of the Official Liquidator that his office had expended a sum of about Rs.2 lacs towards winding up of the Company. Furthermore 14 lacs had been collected from the "tenants". 4. THE Official Liquidator, the said secured creditor and the petitioning creditor stated that they had no objection to the revival of the Company. In those circumstances on 6th September, 2010 the winding up order dated 9th November, 1998 was set aside with a direction upon the Official Liquidator to hand over the assets and other properties of the Company "in his hands" to the applicants. They were treated as trustees of the Company. Furthermore, after deduction of the said expenses of Rs. 2 lacs from the sum of Rs. They were treated as trustees of the Company. Furthermore, after deduction of the said expenses of Rs. 2 lacs from the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- held by the Official Liquidator, the remainder was to be made over to the Company. The property of the Company in liquidation had inter alia one occupier by the name of M/s. Royal Blue Accessories Company. They made an application before this Court which was numbered as T.A. No. 76 of 2010. They expressed the apprehension that they would be dispossessed during handing over of possession of the assets and properties of the Company by the Official Liquidator to the contributories. 5. IN those circumstances I made an order on 20th September, 2010 in the presence of the learned Counsel for the applicant and the Official Liquidator, emphasising that the Official Liquidator would hand over such possession as was enjoyed by him and in so delivering possession he would not disturb any right. Any dispute regarding possession may be resolved in a civil forum. 6. IT appears that almost immediately after that the said occupier filed a suit in the Court of the 1st Civil Judge (Junior Division) Alipore, against the Company claiming inter alia an injunction restraining the Company from dispossessing them or from disturbing their peaceful possession. On 29th September, 2010 an order was made by the Court directing the parties to the suit to maintain status quo regarding possession of the property in occupation of the said occupier. There is no dispute that this order is continuing. Meanwhile, the Company filed an appeal against the said order of 20th September, 2010 before a Division Bench of this Court, A.P.O.T. No. 666 of 2010 connected with A.C.O. No. 176 of 2010, together with a stay application. No substantive order was passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court. It only kept the order under appeal in abeyance for a period of three weeks and observed that the appellant might approach the trial Court. It is pointed out to me, without contradiction that, although it had been recorded in the order of the Hon'ble Appeal Court made on 5th January, 2011 that a "recalling application" was pending before this Court, no such application, prior to the present one was ever filed by the present applicants or as a matter of fact by any one, to recall the order under appeal. The Hon'ble Appeal Court also held that the above Civil Court would be at liberty to proceed, subject to the decision made by the trial Judge. 7. THIS is an application taken out on 29th January, 2011 by the Company and other applicants. The applicant No. 2 verifies this application as a Director of the applicant No. 1 Company and also on behalf of the other applicants. They are the contributories. 8. IT was said by the learned Advocate General moving the application that the rules of natural justice had been violated in not giving any notice to applicants and not hearing them before passing the order dated 20th September, 2010. The judgment in In the Goods of Akshoy K. Ghose (deceased), reported in AIR 1949 Cal 462 (Paragraphs 7 to 13) was placed in great detail. He argued that a person affected by an order must be noticed and heard. The order dated 20th September, 2010 ought not to have been passed without notice and without hearing the applicants. Therefore, the said order should be set aside. This approach is at variance with the points taken by the Applicants at the time of moving this application on 10th February, 2011. I read the material part of the order:- "The substantial point of the applicants seems to be that while reviving the company, the Company Court ought to have decided the alleged encumbrance of occupiers created on its assets and to discharge them by passing appropriate orders. Mr. S. B. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate for the occupiers submits that this application is not maintainable and that the Court has no such power. Further, according to him, this Court has rightly directed the Official Liquidator to hand over the assets and other properties of the company to the contributories on an as is where is basis. Any right of possession has to be adjudicated in a civil forum. I am, prima facie, doubtful whether the Company Court has the power while setting aside the winding up order to decide the question of occupancy right allegedly created during the period when the company was in liquidation. Further, the Appeal Court has specifically said that the civil suit filed pursuant to my order dated 20th September, 2010, will proceed. The Civil Court has passed a status quo order. Therefore, this application is admitted. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 24th February, 2011. Further, the Appeal Court has specifically said that the civil suit filed pursuant to my order dated 20th September, 2010, will proceed. The Civil Court has passed a status quo order. Therefore, this application is admitted. Affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 24th February, 2011. List this application on 14th March, 2011. Affidavit-in-reply may be tiled in the meantime. Needless to mention that if any party is aggrieved by any charge of status quo granted by the Civil Court, it might approach that Court for appropriate relief or for any other relief in an appropriate application, if so available in law." 9. THE learned Senior Counsel opposing this applicant took many points which will be reflected as I come to my conclusion in the following paragraphs. 10. AS rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the occupier that by the order dated 6th September, 2010 made at the instance of the contributories, the Official Liquidator was to hand over the assets and other properties of the Company "in his hands" to the contributories. Whatever properties were in his hands were properties as they were and where they were. There is no dispute regarding this because in the order dated 16th July, 2010 it was clearly stated by the Official Liquidator that properties were being sold on "as is where is basis". Therefore, the order dated 6th September, 2010 was to be understood accordingly. But, for whatever reason at the time of delivery of possession a lot of apprehension was entertained by the occupier that while delivering possession he would be dispossessed. I do not notice that there was any material before the Court to substantiate that apprehension. Therefore, the Official Liquidator being an officer of the Court was directed by me to make over such possession as he enjoyed, no more and no less. Hence he was not to disturb any other right. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 1956 made such clarification of the order dated 6th September, 2010, to its officer, the official liquidator, for possession was to be delivered to the contributories, without disturbing any rights. 11. IN my judgment when such an order was passed it was partly judicial and partly administrative. No rights were intended to be affected. Therefore, no notice to any party was required to be given. Neither any party was required to be heard. 11. IN my judgment when such an order was passed it was partly judicial and partly administrative. No rights were intended to be affected. Therefore, no notice to any party was required to be given. Neither any party was required to be heard. If notices for such purposes were to be given and parties heard, all business of the Company Court would come to a standstill. Hence, IN the Goods of Akshoy K. Ghose (deceased), reported in AIR 1949 Cal 462 (supra) will not apply. No rights have been affected by this order, in my opinion. Hence, the contributories were not required to be noticed before passing this order. 12. FURTHERMORE, in terms of the order dated 6th September, 2010 read with the order dated 20th September, 2010, one Rajib Talukdar took possession of the property from the Official Liquidator on 28th September, 2010 between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. This appears from the minutes of handing over possession prepared on 20th September, 2010, being Annexure 'J' at page 155 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition. Therefore, the conduct of the applicants shows that they accepted the order and acted in terms thereof. Moreover, this application was moved on 10th February, 2011, after expiry of the stay granted by the Hon'ble Appeal Court which further goes to show acceptance of the said order. Moreover, pursuant to the order dated 20th September, 2010, the occupier has filed the above civil suit where the above order of injunction was made on 29th September, 2010. That order is still continuing. Any variation of the order dated 20th September, 2010 at this stage will very seriously affect the equities. 13. LASTLY and in my opinion, most importantly, upon setting aside of the winding up order on 6th September, 2010, the Company Court ceased to have jurisdiction to pass further orders except for clarification or implementation of its earlier orders. That is what I had done. Now to set aside the order dated 20th September, 2010 without interfering with the order setting aside the winding up would tantamount to exercising jurisdiction. 14. FOR all those reasons I would dismiss this application. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.