ORDER A.S. Bopanna , J.—The applicant-Karnataka State Financial Corporation ('K.S.F.C., for short) has filed the instant application under Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules. By the said application, the applicant has prayed that the respondents be directed to cancel the sale of the property of the M/s. Mysore Tissues Pvt. Ltd., which is mortgaged to the applicant-Corporation. An alternative prayer for a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay the amount as indicated therein is also sought. The contesting respondents namely, 2nd and 3rd respondents have filed detailed objection statement opposing the application. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 3. The contention on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant had financed the 1st respondent company namely M/s. Dunford Fabrics Private Limited. The 4th respondent - M/s Mysore Tissues Private Limited also has guaranteed the repayment of the amount by the 1st respondent and as such, the properties belonging to the 4th respondent was held in charge by the applicant company. Similarly the 2nd respondent K.S.I.I.D.C., had also financed the 1st respondent. In that regard, there is a contention on behalf of the parties that the lending to the 1st respondent is by way of consortium consisting of the applicant herein, the 2nd respondent herein and also the State Bank of India and Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India. 4. The grievance of the applicant at present is that the winding up petition filed in Company Petition No. 83/1997 was only against the 1st respondent - M/s Dunford Fabrics Private Limited and the said company as ordered to be wound up by the order dated 9-12-1999. In the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent K.S.I.L.D.C. had filed an application in C.A. No. 729/1999 to stand outside the winding up and recover the amounts due to it. The said application had been allowed by this Court and it is in that regard, the 2nd respondent - K.S.I.I.D.C., initiated steps for sale of the properties belonging to the company in liquidation. Hence, it is contended that at best, the 2nd respondent could have sold the properties standing in the name of the 1st respondent company in liquidation and the property belonging to the 4th respondent could not have been sold. 5. Hence, it is contended that at best, the 2nd respondent could have sold the properties standing in the name of the 1st respondent company in liquidation and the property belonging to the 4th respondent could not have been sold. 5. The respondents herein have disputed the contention of the applicant and have contended that the property belonging to the 4th respondent herein also form a part of the properties which were charged to the 2nd respondent as well as the applicant herein and since the lending was by a consortium the properties were liable to be sold and accordingly, the same has been sold by the K.S.I.I.D.C. After the sale of the property, the K.S.I.L.D.C., has filed an application in C.A. No. 394/2006, seeking confirmation of the sale and this Court by its order dated 15-6-2006 has confirmed the sale it is therefore contended by the respondents that in such circumstance, the applicant cannot make out any grievance before this Court and even otherwise, during the seizure of the properties, the K.S.I.I.D.C., has kept the applicant herein informed about the developments and the K.S.F.C., in fact has handed over the documents to the K.S.I.I.D.C., after the sale had been confirmed by this Court. 6. In the light of the rival contentions which have been put forth and even though the respondents 2 and 3 herein had referred to their objection statement and the documents produced therewith to contend that the applicant cannot make out any grievance in the instant application inasmuch as they have concerned to the entire process of sale by K.S.I.I.D.C., I am of the opinion that the merits of the contentions in that regard need not be adverted to in detail. At this juncture, I am of the said opinion for the reason that when the application in C.A. No. 394/2006 was filed by the K.S.I.I.D.C., before this Court seeking confirmation of the sale, the applicant herein was impleaded as 2nd respondent to the said application. It is in the presence of the 2nd respondent, this Court disposed of the said application on 15-6-2006 confirming the sale of the property. At that juncture, it was open to the applicant herein to take note of the items of the properties, which had been sold and put forth its objection before this Court. It is in the presence of the 2nd respondent, this Court disposed of the said application on 15-6-2006 confirming the sale of the property. At that juncture, it was open to the applicant herein to take note of the items of the properties, which had been sold and put forth its objection before this Court. When that has not been done, I am of the opinion that the said order dated 15-6-2006 would bind the applicant herein and an independent application of the present nature would not be maintainable unless the applicant chooses his legal remedy if any, against the order which he has already suffered before this Court. Therefore, on that short ground, the instant application would not be maintainable. In view of the order dated 15-6-2006, the prayer made by the applicant cannot be considered. 7. In so far as the alternate prayer made in the application, it is needless to mention that if the applicant does not choose to avail his other legal remedies, it would still be open for the applicant to make necessary claim before the Official Liquidator, which in any event would be considered in accordance with law and there cannot be any positive directions. In terms of the above, the application stands disposed of.