JUDGMENT : Comp.A.No.53/2015: The Company Application praying this Court to recall the order of winding up dated 11.3.2014 passed in CP No 9 of 2013. Comp.A.No.54/2015: The Company Application praying this Court to stay all further proceedings of the order dated 2.12.2014 passed in CP 9 of 2013 pending disposal of the C.A.No.53 of 2015. These Company Applications having been heard on 2.3.2015 in the presence of Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan Barrister, the Advocate for the applicant in both applications and or Mr. M.J. Jaseem Mohamed, Advocate for the 1st respondent in both applications and of Mr. P. Atchutha Ramaiya, Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, the 2nd respondent in both applications and upon reading the order dated 2.12.2014 made in CP 9/2013 and the order dated 13.1.2015 made in C.A.Nos.53 & 54/2015 in C.P.No.9/2013, and having stood over for consideration till this date and coming on this day before this Court for orders in the presence of said advocates for the parties hereto and this Court having observed that the applicant has approached this Court much later after the order was passed and in the circumstances mentioned earlier. This Court has carefully perused the affidavit filed in support of the applications. The applicant has once again attempted to build a castle in air raising the plea of counter claim. This Court had already rejected the contentions in the reply notice at the time of winding up of the company and therefore the same cannot be accepted. The applicant has not produced any documents to show that the company was in a position to clear the debt on the date of the application or immediately after the notice. It is only after a threat was posted to the godown, the applicant has approached this Court. Even though, the creditor/petitioner has not raised any demand in the statutory notice, it can be seen from the statement of accounts filed by them that they have been paying interest to the bank. Such a claim was made even earlier and the same is also not disputed. If there was really any counter claim to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, the applicant if had been in a sound position would have withheld Rs 35,000/- and settled the claim immediately upon notice. Such a claim was made even earlier and the same is also not disputed. If there was really any counter claim to the tune of Rs.35,000/-, the applicant if had been in a sound position would have withheld Rs 35,000/- and settled the claim immediately upon notice. The conduct of the applicant only shows that the company was either not doing well or he had diverted the funds for that the company was either not doing well or he had diverted the funds for some other business. Therefore, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case holds that the petitioner/creditor would be entitled to interest, and in sofar as the costs are concerned the applicant has come forward before this Court to recall the orders exercising the inherent powers under Rule 9, therefore, while passing an order to recall its earlier order, this Court is certainly entitled to modify the order and award costs, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the applicant is liable to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- and in so far as expenses are concerned, this Court finds that the contention of the applicant company is to be inexplicable. The official liquidator was appointed and steps have also been initiated. There have been several visits by the officials from the office of the liquidator. The directors have also submitted the statement of affairs to the official liquidator. If the applicant had wanted to avoid the payment of expenses, the applicant must have settled the issue at the earliest point of time. Upon perusal of the statutory notice, the petitioner has also proposed to saddle the applicant with the costs, which would definitely include the expenses and in so far as the costs and expenses are concerned this Court is of the view that, the petitioner is entitled to the actual expenses incurred by them. Though the petitioner has claimed to have spent Rs.80,000/- no proof is produced for the same. Obviously, it would include the counsel's fee, costs towards notices and the amount deposited with official liquidator towards expenses. Though the petitioner has claimed to have spent Rs.80,000/- no proof is produced for the same. Obviously, it would include the counsel's fee, costs towards notices and the amount deposited with official liquidator towards expenses. It is ordered as follows: 1) That the respondent/petitioner herein be and hereby is directed to file a fresh statement of claim indicating the expenses incurred by them and the proof for payment within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with the official liquidator after serving a copy of such claim to the applicant/Respondent and on his counsel. 2) That the applicant/Respondent herein shall pay the claim within two weeks thereafter and furnish the proof to the Official Liquidator. 3) That upon such payment, the order dated 11.3.2014 passed by this Court in CP 9/2013 & CA 30/2013 shall stand recalled. 4) That in case of the failure of the applicant/Respondent to settle the claim, the official Liquidator/the 2nd respondent herein shall be at liberty to execute the order dated 2.12.2014 made in CP 9/2013, of this Court and proceed in accordance with law. 5) That status quo as directed by this Court dated 13.1.2015 made in C.A.Nos.53 & 54 of 2015 in CP 9/2013, shall be maintained until further orders of this Court. 6) That the respondent/petitioner herein shall be entitled to interest @ 12% from 11.3.2014 till repayment. WITNESS, The Hon'ble Thiru SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, The Chief Justice of Madras High Court, aforesaid this the 27th day of April, 2015.