ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. The present application is filed seeking the following reliefs: "(a) To summon the respondents 1 to 4 herein for the purpose of examination in regard to the matter specified hereinabove; (b) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 1,33,360/- shown as vehicles under the head 'Fixed Assets' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (c) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 73,74,150.79/- under the head 'Sundry Debtors' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (d) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 1,10,854/- under the head 'Deposits' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (e) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 81,257.34/- under the head 'Cash and Bank Balances' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (f) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 19,41,269.42/- under the head 'Loans and Advances' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (g) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 19,41,269.42/- under the head 'Loans and Advances' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; (g) To declare that respondents 1 to 4 jointly or severally are liable to pay to the Official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 500/- under the head 'Investments' along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of winding up order till the date of payment; and (h) To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case." The points of claim are as follows: "It is shown in the balance-sheet that a sum of Rs. 1,33,360/- under the head of 'Fixed Assets' which are said to belong to the company. A Maruthi Omni vehicle, a 1993 model was said to be on the premises of the company and the whereabouts of the vehicle not having been discovered, the official liquidator claims Rs. 13,33,360/- with 18% interest per annum on the value of the vehicle, as above, from the date of winding up order till the date of payment. The second claim is in a sum of Rs. 73,74,150.79 towards 'Sundry Debtors' and on the ground that the Official Liquidator has not been able to recover these amounts. The details of the debtors are not available." 2. The next head of claim is under the head of 'deposits' in respect of deposits made with statutory bodies. 3. The next head of recovery is under 'cash and bank balance' in a sum of Rs. 81,257.34/- and also under the head of 'Loans and Advances' in a sum of Rs. 19,41,269.42/-. 4. It is the above amounts, in a total sum of Rs. 96,41,391.55/-, that the Official Liquidator has sought to recover. 5. The respondents had entered appearance. The second respondent had claimed that he had resigned from the respondent-company prior to the date of winding up order and had filed necessary form before the Registrar of Companies and had sought for exemption from appearance and he was accordingly exempted. Similarly, the other respondents were placed ex parte. 5. The respondents had entered appearance. The second respondent had claimed that he had resigned from the respondent-company prior to the date of winding up order and had filed necessary form before the Registrar of Companies and had sought for exemption from appearance and he was accordingly exempted. Similarly, the other respondents were placed ex parte. The respondent 1 had entered appearance and filed statement of objections to state that insofar as the vehicle and the value of which that is sought to be recovered was on the company premises when the assets of the company were said to be seized by KSFC pursuant to an order passed in Company Petition No. 97 of 2000 and since the vehicle in question was a 1993 model, it had fallen into disuse and it was not in a roadworthy condition and same was lying on the company premises after the same was sealed. The respondent was unaware of the whereabouts of the car and the account for Rs. 1,33,000/- which has been mechanically deducted by the Official Liquidator. The said vehicle being 7 years old and having been rendered useless was of zero value according to the books and therefore the statement is misleading and would not be tenable. 6. Insofar as 'Sundry Debtors' are concerned, those debtors were from Punjab and Andhra Pradesh and the goods were sold to them through agents and hence their whereabouts were not known. There were many legal actions against them and the company could not ascertain the Sundry Debtors and their location directly as they were always dealing through agents and hence it is not possible to recover any amounts from those Sundry Debtors. 7. Insofar as deposits of the company are concerned, they were statutory deposits towards utilities such as electricity, water and other services and apparently the same have been adjusted towards outstanding arrears payable to the concerned entities. 8. Further insofar as the 'Current Account' of the company is concerned, it had a cash credit account which has been shown on the liability side. The account was considered as 'NPA', and has been recalled by the bank. Hence there was no transaction. The balance amount of Rs. 81,257.34/- was shown in the balance-sheet, which is also said to have been adjusted by the bank towards a 'loan account'. 9. Insofar as balance-sheet of 31-3-2001, the total of loans and advances was Rs. The account was considered as 'NPA', and has been recalled by the bank. Hence there was no transaction. The balance amount of Rs. 81,257.34/- was shown in the balance-sheet, which is also said to have been adjusted by the bank towards a 'loan account'. 9. Insofar as balance-sheet of 31-3-2001, the total of loans and advances was Rs. 17,72,024/- which consisted of MODAVAT credit of Rs. 13,29,268/- and advances to C and F agent etc., at Rs. 4,42,756/- hence, the total Rs. 17,72,024/- has been mentioned in the balance-sheet of Rs. 31-3-2001. Subsequently, the advances have been adjusted by the agents towards the dues paid by them. The statement of account furnished by the agents would show that it has been adjusted and hence finally the amount written in the company books has been mentioned in the balance-sheet and the balance of Rs. 4,42,756/- has been shown in the statement of affairs. The balance of MODAVAT credit is not shown in the statement since it was only a book entry and the goods were practically not recovered and the respondent was unable to furnish any documents in this regard as the premises of the company was sealed by the KSFC on 6-9-2000 and therefore seeks dismissal of the application. The Official Liquidator has tendered evidence in support of the application through P.W. 1. The witness has merely denied the suggestions made to him and has only stood by the statements made by him to support the documents that were produced before the Court. In this view or the matter, the primary contention of the learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator is as regards the value of the motor vehicle. Some explanation has been offered in support of the several claims. Insofar as the value of the vehicle involved is concerned, the vehicle being a 1993 model, it would have been on its last legs at the end of five or six years and since the winding up order was passed in 2001 and since KSFC had sealed the premises, it was quite possible that the vehicle had also been seized. The respondent states that the vehicle was not roadworthy and it was kept in the company premises and its whereabouts are not known. Therefore, there is no merit and the explanation offered by the respondent in support of the said heads of claim, is also plausible. The respondent states that the vehicle was not roadworthy and it was kept in the company premises and its whereabouts are not known. Therefore, there is no merit and the explanation offered by the respondent in support of the said heads of claim, is also plausible. The application stands disposed of accordingly.