JUDGMENT Awadh Raj Singh and 99 others are before this Court in Special Appeal No. 234 of 2016 preferred under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 9 of the Company Court Rules 1959 alongwith Under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, assailing the validity of the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in Company Petition No. 24 of 2009 to the extent, it directs the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to take proper and effective steps and if necessary may issue notices to the occupants and take possession of the properties and deliver it to the Official Liquidator and/or pass such other/further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Brief background of the case is that Company Elgin Mill which is a subsidiary company of British India Corporation (for short BIC) is under winding up. In reference of said company in question, orders have been passed by this Court on 25.10.2010 to wind up the company in question and Official Liquidator has been appointed. The Official Liquidator has proceeded for the public sale of the properties of the company in liquidation but during pendency of the sale proceedings it transpired that some of the properties of the company in liquidation are in unauthorized occupation. Qua the same details of the properties have been mentioned that there are 14 public premises belonging to the company in liquidation comprising of 327 independent house. Out of these 327 houses 85 are vacant and 242 are in occupation; 20 by unauthorized occupants, 174 by retired/VRS employees, 22 by the Elgin Mills employees and 26 by the employees of the BIC. 3. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to make a mention after taking into account of the list of persons in illegal occupation of the various properties and appellants before this Court are also persons who are illegal occupation of various properties, passed order on 16.12.2015 for getting best possible market price in respect of each of them, otherwise, it may result in distress sale, and in the said direction for getting the premises vacated directives have been issued to the District Magistrate concerned. 4. 4. Appellants before this Court are aggrieved by this part of the order and their submission is that more than 10% of the VSS amount along with the gratuity was retained by the Management as security towards retaining the quarters by the appellants and accordingly their rights has been infringed, in view of same, this Court should interfere in the matter. 5. Request made by the appellants, has been resisted by Sri O.P. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.1, Ms. Kirtika Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2 and Sri Subham Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no.3 by contending that appellants are unauthorized occupants, they cannot resist the order in question and specially when on subsequent occasion application has been moved on behalf of the appellants requesting for extension of time, and same has been allowed on 29.02.2016. 6. We have proceeded to examine the order dated 29.02.2016 and what we find from the record in question is that in order to see and ensure that unauthorized occupants should vacate the premises in question, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has been asked to get vacated from the unauthorized occupants, the property in question so that it may and fetch best possible market price. 7. Once order in question proceeds to protect the interest of Company under winding, and admittedly appellants are unauthorized occupant, and on subsequent occasion, they have moved application for extension of time for vacating the premises in question and same has been allowed on 29.02.2016, by giving time to vacate premises up to 31.08.2016, subject to furnishing of undertaking within one month from the said date, then there is no occasion for us to intervene in the matter and that too at the behest of the appellants who are admittedly unauthorized occupant. Consequently, Special Appeal sans merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.