ORDER Application No. 15446/2014 under Section 460(4) of the Companies Act, 1956(for short 'the Act') read with Rule 9 of the Companies(Court) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules') has been filed by the Official Liquidator seeking modification of orders dated 05.06.2014 and 04.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk (for short 'the Trial Court') and for dispensing with condition of filing Indemnity Bond/Supurdiginama of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the Official Liquidator and in the alternative, it has been prayed that if the condition of Indemnity Bond/Supurdiginama by the Official Liquidator is at all necessary, it should be clarified that the indemnity bond would be only made in the name of designation, i.e., “Official Liquidator of M/s. Kesari Vanaspati Products Limited(In Liquidation)” and not the person holding the said designation and Bond should be confined to ownership issued as also the indemnity bond/suprudiginama of Rs. 10,00,000/- be reduced/ substituted by the “full amount of realised value of the stolen goods so sold.” 2. Despite notice of the application to the State Counsel, Mr. B.N. Sandu, no one has appeared to contest the application. 3. The applicant, Official Liquidator was appointed as provisional Liquidator in winding up petition filed against M/s. Kesari Vanaspati Products Limited by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2004. The applicant Official Liquidator filed Company Application No. 67/2013 seeking necessary direction with regard to numerous thefts and murder which taken place in factory premise of the Company(in liquidation) situated at Niwai, District Tonk for which number of FIRs were lodged and investigation was done by the Police Station Niwai. The culprits were caught and charge sheets were filed and various criminal cases with regard to thefts have been registered and pending before the learned Trial Court. In the application submitted before this Court, direction was sought to be issued to S.H.O., Police Station Niwai, District Tonk to hand over the stolen goods recovered in the theft case from the accused to the Official Liquidator with permission to sale the same as such articles were subject to decay. This Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 directed S.H.O., Police Station Niwai, District Tonk present in the Court to furnish the list of articles which have been recovered and seized from the accused persons. Said list was provided to Official Liquidator by Deputy Superintendent of Police cum C.O., Tonk. 4. This Court vide order dated 28.03.2014 directed S.H.O., Police Station Niwai, District Tonk present in the Court to furnish the list of articles which have been recovered and seized from the accused persons. Said list was provided to Official Liquidator by Deputy Superintendent of Police cum C.O., Tonk. 4. This Court vide order dated 16.05.2014 granted liberty to the Official Liquidator to make an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for custody and disposal of the recovered articles since most of them were iron scrap subject to decay. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Official Liquidator filed an application before the Trial Court praying therein to hand over the Company's stolen property to the applicant representing the Company and for directions for its sale as the said property is subject to decay. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.06.2014 disposed of the said application ordering that the said articles be handed over to the Official Liquidator on the condition of his executing an indemnity bond/suprudiginama of Rs. 10,00,000/- to S.H.O. Police Station Niwai, Tonk. Other directions to furnish details with regard to the stolen property were given, i.e. case wise list of the articles and coloured photographs of the articles. 5. Since there was no specific order with regard to sale/disposal of recovered property/articles, Official Liquidator filed application before the Trial Court for modification of order dated 05.06.2014 praying for directions to sell the stolen property and to confine the condition of the indemnity bond/supurdiginama to ownership issue. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2014 disposed of the application and clarified the order dated 05.06.2014 in the terms that the applicant-Official Liquidator will be at liberty to sell the stolen property after filing the list of articles proposed to be sold and photographs thereof. The prayer for modifying previous order with regard to filing of indemnity bond/supurdiginama by Official Liquidator was rejected. Hence, the applicant-Official Liquidator has filed this application. 6. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Trial Court failed to appreciate that the title over the stolen property of the company (in liquidation) through O.L. is not disputed. Since the company is in liquidation, all its properties would be deemed in symbolic custody of this Court through Official Liquidator. 6. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Trial Court failed to appreciate that the title over the stolen property of the company (in liquidation) through O.L. is not disputed. Since the company is in liquidation, all its properties would be deemed in symbolic custody of this Court through Official Liquidator. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that Official Liquidator could not have executed any indemnity bond/supurdiginama in his personal name. The Stolen property belongs to the company(in liquidation) to which this Court as winding up court is custodia legis and the impugned condition of filing indemnity bond/suprudiginama is unwarranted and unnecessary. Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that if the condition of indemnity bond/supurdiginama by the present applicant was at all necessary, it should have been clarified that the indemnity(Bond) would be submitted only by the designation, i.e. “Official Liquidator of M/s. Kesari Vanaspati Products Limited(In Liquidation)” and not by personal name of person, who is holding such designation and the term of the bond should have been confined to the ownership issue, as he might be transferred and some other incumbent might join in his place. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his arguments has relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in General Insurance Council & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 768 . He has, therefore, prayed that condition of filing indemnity bond/supurdiginama may be dispensed with and alternatively, it may be directed that the same would be submitted in the name of designation, i.e. “Official Liquidator of M/s. Kesari Vanaspati Products Limited(In Liquidation)” and not in the name of present incumbent in that office and the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- may be reduced to by the “full amount of realised value of the stolen goods so sold”. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the material on record. 8. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that initially when the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Trial Court, it permitted handing over the articles/property in question, which were stolen form the factory premise of the company in liquidation on indemnity bond/supurdiginama of Rs. 10,00,000/-to Official Liquidator with direction that he shall furnish case wise list of articles/property handed over along with coloured photographs thereof for the purpose of evidence. 10,00,000/-to Official Liquidator with direction that he shall furnish case wise list of articles/property handed over along with coloured photographs thereof for the purpose of evidence. On subsequent application submitted by the applicant for modification, the Trial Court permitted the Official Liquidator to sell the goods in question, which are mostly iron scrap and indisputably subject to decay and if not sold in time, would lose their value and again reiterated direction that the Official Liquidator shall furnish case wise list of articles with reference to different FIRs registered. But the Trial court declined to delete the condition of furnishing of indemnity bond/supurdiginama on the premise that trials of the aforesaid cases were still pending and in view of the provisions of Cr.P.C., such condition could not be deleted. 9. The Supreme Court in General Insurance Council & Ors.(supra) dealt with the case where the writ petition was filed by General Insurance Council constituted under Section 64 C(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938, contending that despite direction passed by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat as also in W.P.(C) No. 282 of 2007 titled General Insurance Council and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, there had not been full and complete compliance of the directives issued therein. Therefore, the petitioner therein again approached the Supreme Court for issuance of further directions so that the national waste with regard to the seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences is saved and seized vehicle may not become junk and their road worthiness be maintained. Almost all the States contended that they had already issued necessary guidelines and directions for full and complete compliance of the provisions contained in Sections 451 and 457 of the Code as elaborated in case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) as also under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 159 of the Rules as directed in case of General Insurance Council (supra). They contended that there would not be any difficulty in compliance of the directions that may be issued in furtherance of achieving the object as directed by the Supreme Court. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the Supreme Court issue further additional directions in Para 14 of the judgment which reads as under: “14. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the Supreme Court issue further additional directions in Para 14 of the judgment which reads as under: “14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given. "(A) Insurer may be permitted to move separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified and a detailed panchnama may be prepared before such release. (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with. (C) Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee would be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer." 10. Perusal of the direction in Clause (C) supra would indicate that the Supreme Court required the insurer to submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee world be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer. The undertaking/guarantee world be furnished at the time of release of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer. There is no reason why the same direction may not be issued in the case of the applicant herein through Official Liquidator, who has been appointed under provisions of Section 456 of the Act to take charge of properties of the company in liquidation. Undeniably, articles in question have been stolen from the factory premise of the company in liquidation and the aforesaid FIRs have been registered at the instance of the Official Liquidator through guards posted at the factory premise or otherwise. The articles in question have to be disposed of, as they are subject to decay and would lose their value completely, if not timely disposed of. This should be done to realise whatever salvage value they carry, so as to make use of the sale proceeds in satisfying the claims of the creditors. If they are not sold timely, they would be unworthy of any use or value in future. In these circumstances, the insistence of the Trial Court to submit indemnity bond/suprudiginama by Official Liquidator in his name cannot be appreciated. 11. In view of above, Application No. 15446/2014 is allowed with the direction that the Official Liquidator shall submit an undertaking/guarantee before the Trial Court, i.e., Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the items/articles in question, which would be handed over to him pursuant to impugned orders dated 05.06.2014 and 04.07.2014 along with case wise list/inventory of all such articles/items with reference to different FIRs and also coloured photographs thereof. The undertaking/guarantee shall be for the actual value of sale proceeds of the items (iron scrap etc. in question) on their complete sale, which condition would be inserted in the undertaking/guarantee. On completion of the sale, the Official Liquidator shall accordingly furnish an additional undertaking/guarantee incorporating the exact amount of sale proceeds. Compliance of this order be made forthwith.