P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed by A. P. State financial Corporation against the order of the learned single Judge in directing the appellant-Corporation to deposit with the official Liquidator a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 in R. C. C. No. 7 of 1999 and a sum of rs. 5,000/- in R. C. C. No. 3 of 1999 towards the preliminary expenses. The appellant is also aggrieved by the direction to advertise the factum of passing winding up order and to file proof of publication.

( 2 ) THE first respondent-Company was directed to be wound up by the learned company Judge on a reference made by bifr under Section 20 (1) of the Sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) act. The appellant is a statutory corporation which advanced loans to the companies concerned on obtaining securities including the assets of the company. Thus, the appellant is in the position of a secured creditor. The appellant is endowed with the power of takeover and sale of assets to realize its outstanding dues under the provisions of the State Financial corporations Act. It can opt to remain outside the winding up proceedings and enforce the securities on its own, subject to the leave of the Court. It is to be mentioned at the outset that it is not at the instance of the appellant-Corporation that the BIFR referred the cases for passing the order of winding up the Companies. The appellant did not figure in the proceedings before this court. In the proceedings before this Court, the appellant did not make any request for winding up. It neither support nor opposed the winding up proceedings. However, at the time of passing the order of winding up, this Court directed the appellant -Corporation to cause the publication of the order and to deposit the said amount for the reason that it is the principal secured creditor. In R. C. C. No. 3 of 1998, the learned judge clarified that the official Liquidator has to reimburse this amount to the corporation out of the assets in priority to the other debts of the Company. The legality of the said directions given by the learned Company Judge is in question in these appeals.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of the appellant that the appellant is under no obligation to advertise the order under Rule 113 of companies (Court) Rules nor advance any amount towards the initial expenses, more so, when the appellant did not apply for or request winding up. It is submitted that either the Official Liquidator has to draw funds from the Central Government to meet the initial expenses or the BIFR has to make the deposit to put into effect the order of winding up. It is also made clear that if the official Liquidator incurs any expenditure for safeguarding the assets of the Company on taking charge of the same pursuant to the winding up order, the appellant has no objection to advance or reimburse the amount to that extent if proper account is furnished. It is also pointed out that the appellant is already taking care of the security (assets) in its own interest after takeover of the Unit and there is very little role for the Official Liquidator to play.

( 4 ) THE crux of the objection is as to the deposit of the so-called preliminary expenses with the Official Liquidator and to meet advertisement expenses to put into effect the winding up order. Reliance has been placed by the learned single Judge on the proviso to Rule 292. In BIFR vs. Chairman and MD, Adivasi Paper Mills Ltd. , another learned single Judge relied on the proviso to Section 529 and Section 529-A and the decisions bearing on the interpretation of the said provisions and directed the State Financial Corporation and other secured creditors to pay their contributions towards the expenses to be incurred by the Official Liquidator in connection with the winding up order passed by the Court including advertisement expenses. For taking that view, reliance was placed on the earlier decisions of this Court in APSFC vs. Electro thermics (P) Ltd. , and APSFC vs. Official liqui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document