JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J. This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 25-3-2012 passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 5/2011. By the aforesaid order, the learned Company Judge allowed LA. No. 2590/2011 filed by the respondent No. 1 and appointed a provisional Liquidator. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a winding up petition of the appellant-company. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 1 advanced inter corporate deposits to the appellant-company and an amount of Rs. 5.15 crores was advanced. The appellant-company admitted the aforesaid debt. It agreed to pay the debt vide settlement agreement dt.18-1-2010 in two instalments before May 31, 2011. But it paid only Rs. 2 crores and rest of the amount have not been paid. On 15-2-2011 the liability of the payment of Rs. 5,73,97,440 was due against the appellant-company. Respondent No. 1 further pleaded that the appellant-company did not file annual returns and it was running in loss and substratum of the company was lost. It was under suspension on account of non-compliance of listing agreement clause since 28-2-1997. It filed LA. No. 2590/2011 under sections 443 and 445 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for appointment of provisional Official Liquidator. The respondent No. 1 pleaded that on 31st January, 2011, an amount of Rs. 5,73,97,440 was due as admitted debt against the appellant-company. The appellant had been incurring losses since 2007-08 and it did not file the annual returns. Criminal complaint was also filed against the Board of Directors of the company before the CJM. It is further pleaded that the company has lost its substratum, hence, a provisional Official Liquidator be appointed. 3. Appellant company in its reply denied the allegations. It pleaded that the appellant has enough fund available with it to pay the debt of the respondent No. 1. The net worth of the appellant-company is more than Rs. 150 crores. The appellant-company further pleaded that the provisional Liquidator could not be appointed because it is a last resort. The working of the company is quite satisfactory. The Central Government allowed the appellant-company to deal in the business of selling and purchase of land. The appellant-company submitted a proposal before the Company Judge for grant of permission to sale the land. 4. The working of the company is quite satisfactory. The Central Government allowed the appellant-company to deal in the business of selling and purchase of land. The appellant-company submitted a proposal before the Company Judge for grant of permission to sale the land. 4. Learned Company Judge vide impugned order has held that there was no progress in regard to financial condition of the appellant-company, outstanding dues against the appellant-company have been enhanced day by day. The company has to pay to various creditors including MPFC, Provident Fund Organization and workers besides the respondent No. 1-company. Learned Company Judge further observed that fair distribution of the assets of the company is necessary so that one creditor be not benefited at the expense of the others and appointed Official Liquidator attached to the Court as provisional Liquidator. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company has contended that the order passed by the learned Company Judge is contrary to law. There is no strong prima facie case for winding up of the company neither the substratum of the company has been lost. It is not in the public interest to appoint the provisional Liquidator. It is further submitted that the total assets of the company are to the tune of near about Rs. 150 crores. The value of the land of the appellant-company is in excess than the liability of the company. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Company Judge is contrary to law. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments: - (i) M/s M. Gordhandas and Co. v. M.W. Industries, AIR 1971 SC 2600 , (ii) In the matter of Gaya Sugar Mills Ltd., 1950 Com. Cas. 151, (iii) Company Petition No. 4 of 1972, Virendra Singh Bhandari and others v. Nandlal Bhandari and Sons, decided on 27-4-1981, (iv) K.P. Mishra and others v. Medwin Laboratory, (1995) 5 Comp. L.J. 449 (M. P.). 6. Contrary to this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has contended that the company has played a game of hide and seek. It did not furnish balance sheet of the company before the Company Judge. The company also hides the fact that due to non-payment of provident fund of the employees, the assets of the company have been attached. It did not furnish balance sheet of the company before the Company Judge. The company also hides the fact that due to non-payment of provident fund of the employees, the assets of the company have been attached. It is further stated that the company has also not paid financial dues of MPFC, Provident Fund Organization and anyhow the management of the company wants to sell the land of the company in order to gain profit. The substratum of the company has been lost and it is not in a position to make the payment to its employees. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly appointed the provisional liquidator. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has relied on the following judgments: - (i) ESPN Software v. Modi Entertainment Network Ltd., (2012) 173 Comp. Cas. 465 (Del), (ii) Motorola India Ltd. v. BSF Mobile Communications, (2005) 127 Comp. Cas. 318 (Del), (iii) Asha Bhonsle v. Magnasound (India), (2005) 127 Comp. Cas. 375 (Bom.), (iv) In Re.: Central India Spinning, Weaving and Mfg. Co Ltd., 1986 (88) Bom. L.R. 226. 7. Bombay High Court in the case of Asha Bhonsle v. Magnasound (India), reported in (2005) 127, Comp. Cas. 375 (Bom.) has held as under in regard to appointment of provisional liquidator: - “8. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the two learned single Judges of this Court in the two cases referred to above. While it is true that the Official Liquidator would not be likely appointed, the Court should not hesitate to appoint the Official Liquidator as a provisional liquidator in case in the following cases: (i) Where there is no opposition to the winding up or where the company concedes to an appointment of a liquidator as a provisional liquidator; (ii) The substratum of the company is lost and there is no possibility of the company's revival; (iii) Though the substratum is not lost completely, but the commercial insolvency looms large on the face of the company and the Court is of the opinion that there is a strong prima facie view, though not a certainty, that the company would ultimately be wound up at the final hearing of the petition. The Court must further be satisfied that prima facie, the liquidity problem was not temporary and by allowing the company to carry on further business without appointment of the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator the company was not likely to come out of the woes but was likely to incur further losses which is not in the interest of the creditors.” 8. Besides these parameters, it is also held that a provisional liquidator could be appointed in appropriate case when strong prima facie case for winding up is made out and it would be just equitable and proper to appoint provisional liquidator in the interest of company. 9. In the present case, the appellant-company has a liability to make payment of EPF dues to its employees. As informed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that near about 8 crores are due against the appellant-company for payment of provident fund to the employees. An order under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was passed against the appellant-company and the authority has attached the property of the company. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal is pending before the appellate authority. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MPFC-respondent No. 2 opposed the appointment of provisional Liquidator and submitted that the company has to pay near about 2.50 crores the loan amount taken by the company from the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that the company has mortgaged its property with MPFC. The company did not disclose the aforesaid liability before the Company Judge. It has also not disclosed the fact that the assets and property of the company were mortgaged in favour of respondent No. 2 against the debt advanced by the respondent No. 2. It also did not disclose the fact that Provident Fund Organization passed an order of attachment of the company and warrant of arrest was also issued against the Managing Director of the company. It is further submitted that a PIL was filed against the appellant-company for payment of wages to its employees. The appellant-company did not file balance-sheets before the Company Judge to substantiate the claim that financial condition of the appellant is sound and substratum of the company has not been lost. 11. It is further submitted that a PIL was filed against the appellant-company for payment of wages to its employees. The appellant-company did not file balance-sheets before the Company Judge to substantiate the claim that financial condition of the appellant is sound and substratum of the company has not been lost. 11. Respondent No. 1 filed some documents before the Company Judge at the time of final argument along with the written submissions. Audited Accounts of 31st March, 2008 and 2009 were filed and as per the report there was net loss of Rs. 159.32 lakhs to the appellant-company. Similarly in the audit report and audit accounts for the year ending 31st March, 2009, a net loss was Rs. 1411.06 lakhs. As per the auditors report in regard to balance-sheet as on 31st March, 2009, the company was not regular in depositing all applicable undisputed Liabilities including Provident Fund, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Cess and other statutory dues with the appropriate authorities. It is further mentioned in the report that the accumulated loss of the company at the end of the financial year 2008-09 exceeds 50% of its net worth. The company did not produce balance sheet before the Company Court so it could be verified that whether further net worth of the company has been lost or not. The Chartered Accountant in its certificate certified that the company was in defaulter in filing annual returns of the financial year 2009-10 onwards. 12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company has produced the balance-sheet as on 31st March, 2011 for the perusal of the Court. Along with the balance-sheet, auditor's report has also been placed before the Court. In the report the auditor has clearly mentioned that the accumulated losses of the company at the end of financial year 2010-11 exceeded 50% of its net worth. The company has not incurred cash loss in financial year 2010-11. However, it has incurred cash loss in the financial year immediately preceding financial year 2010-2011. It is further observed by the auditors that the company is not regular in depositing all applicable undisputed Liabilities including Provident Fund, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Cess and other statutory dues with the appropriate authorities. As stated above in the order, an amount of Rs. 5,73,97,440 is due against the appellant-company. Similarly, the appellant-company has to pay near about Rs. It is further observed by the auditors that the company is not regular in depositing all applicable undisputed Liabilities including Provident Fund, Income Tax, Sales Tax, Cess and other statutory dues with the appropriate authorities. As stated above in the order, an amount of Rs. 5,73,97,440 is due against the appellant-company. Similarly, the appellant-company has to pay near about Rs. 8 crores against EPF liability of its employees and near about 3 crores to MPFC and as per the auditors report, accumulated loss of the company at the financial year 2010-11 exceeds 50% of its net worth. In this view of the fact, in our opinion, the company has lost its substratum. 13. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company vehemently argued to the effect that the total value of the land of the company is near about Rs. 150 crores. For the aforesaid purpose, no proper valuation report has been filed. It has further been submitted that the company has been permitted to enter into business of purchase and sell of land by the Central Government and in the Memorandum of Association of the company the aforesaid object has been incorporated, hence, the company would be able to satisfy its liabilities after selling some portion of the land. It has not been stated by the company before the Company Court or before this Court that how much land it has purchased. We have gathered an impression that in order to satisfy its liability, the company anyhow wants to sale lands, however, the EPF authorities have already attached the land of the appellant-company. Apart from this, it was mortgaged with the MPFC. The appellant-company deliberately concealed the aforesaid facts neither produced hypothecation or mortgage deeds before the Court in order to satisfy the fact that it has free land. In our opinion, anyhow the management of the company wants permission to sale the land of the company, so that they can earn huge amount and they could also repay the loan or liability. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the company could not be permitted to sale its assets for the purpose of satisfaction of one creditor and the interest of other creditors have to be seen. Apart from this, if the property of the company is attached, there is no question of sale of the land. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the company could not be permitted to sale its assets for the purpose of satisfaction of one creditor and the interest of other creditors have to be seen. Apart from this, if the property of the company is attached, there is no question of sale of the land. The company even has not paid the salary of the workers. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badami v. Bhali, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 574 has held that parties must come before Court with clean hands and the litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under: - “31. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. A litigant who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If a vital document is withheld in order to gain advantage on the other side he would be guilty of playing fraud on Court as well as on the opposite party. 32. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros, it has been opined that the fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery of deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi. 33. In State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao after referring to the earlier decision this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 155, para 16) '.....No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.' In the same judgment Lord Parker, LJ. Observed that fraud 'vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity' (Lzarus case, QB p.722).” 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 has held as under in regard to a party who has not disclosed to the Court the correct facts: - “38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 has held as under in regard to a party who has not disclosed to the Court the correct facts: - “38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the Court knows law but not facts”. 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the Court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which, has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.” 16. After perusal of the record of the company petition, we have gathered the impression that the company concealed all the material facts before the Company Court and it any how wants permission to sell the land. In fact, such applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.” 16. After perusal of the record of the company petition, we have gathered the impression that the company concealed all the material facts before the Company Court and it any how wants permission to sell the land. The appellant-company did not file balance-sheets to substantiate the claim about its economic condition. Contrary to this, neither it brought into notice of the Court the facts in regard to its liabilities towards provident fund of the employees, loan of MPFC, payment of wages to the workers and other tax liabilities as mentioned by the CA in the audited report mentioned above in the order. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly appointed the provisional Liquidator. The judgments cited by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company are distinguishable on facts because in the present case, the appellant-company did not produce any fact or balance-sheet before the Court to substantiate its claim that it has sound financial position and it can repay the loan amount or satisfy the creditors. Contrary to this, as per the CA report ending 31st March, 2011 produced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-company, the accumulated losses of the company exceeded 50% of its net worth. Other liabilities of the company have also been concealed by the appellant-company. In this view of the matter, learned Company Judge has rightly passed the order in regard to appointment of provisional liquidator. 17. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.