The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Securitisation Act would prevail as long as the company was in existence, and no leave of the company court was required for selling the secured assets. The court also emphasized the necessity of a valid charge created in favor of the respondent bank and the implications of registration requirements under the Companies Act.

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the company in liquidation through the Official Liquidator, challenging the order dated 4-5-2005 whereby the learned Company Judge refused to recall the oider dated 17-10-2003, which was passed in Application No 142/ 2003 Further relief sought is to quash and set aside the order passed in Review Application No 55/2005 on 13-6-2005 By the impugned order dated 4-5-2005 the learned company Judge refused to recall the order dated 17-10-2003, permitting the secured creditors to proceed under Securitisation act, and in view of that rejected Company application No 97/2004 and 11/2005 The learned Judge further ordered that in view of the finding recorded in the order it was open to the State Bank respondent to proceed to sell the secured asset of 18 acres and 20 gunthas of land as advertised by it after complying with and furnishing undertaking to the Official Liquidator as required by sections 529 and 529-A of the Companies Act It was further made clear that, respondent State Bank of India is not entitled to sell the movables mentioned by it in the advertisement or otherwise under securitisation Act as the same is in the custody of Official Liquidator To that extent partly allowed Company Application No 83/2004 and Company Application No 9/2004 in view of this finding, the Court held that, it was not necessary to pass any orders in company Application No 57/2001 filed by the State Bank of India seeking leave to remain outside the winding up proceeding and the said application was ajso rejected hence, the present appeal as filed by the company through the Official Liquidator

( 2 ) A few facts may now be set out as under - By order dated 28-11-2000 B I F R recommended winding up of the company. Petition for winding up was presented on 8-6-2001, and it was admitted on 24-8-2001 On 17-9-2001 State Bank respondent filed company Application No 57/2001 to remain outside winding up proceedings and recover the dues by proceeding under the Debts Due To Bank and Financial Institution Act (hereinafter referred to as r D B Act) The respondent bank had filed o A No 474/2001 before Debts Recovery tribunal, Nagpur under the provisions of the Debts Due to Bank And Financial Institution Act The Official Liquidator was not made a party in those proceedings By order dated 18-1-2002 the Honble Delhi High court dismissed the Writ Petition No 4404 / 2001 filed by the company against the order of B I F R On 6-6-2003 the appellant was appointed as Provisional Liquidator with a direction to prepare inventory of property. On 11-6-2003 according to appellant all the property at Akola both movable and immovable which forms the subject-matter was taken in possession in presence of the respondent, and it was locked and sealed, security was deployed, and inventory was prepared. The respondent bank filed an application bearing No. 142/2003 in the company petition without a copy to appellant or other creditors, and without any affidavit of schedule of property seeking permission to proceed against the company under Securitisation And Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act ). It is the case of the appellant that, the learned company judge without hearing any party in the proceedings, allowed the same on 17-10-2003. According to the appellant they filed OLR no. 63/2003 for sale of property. The State bank objected to the same and the objection is still pending. This was filed on 6-11-2003. In the meantime the SLP No. 17406/2002 preferred against the order of Delhi high Court, dismissing the petition against the order of B. I. F. R. was dismissed by the honble Apex Court. On 23-4-2004 the company was finally wound up. It is the case of the appellant that by virtue of winding up all the properties of company including the subject-matter of the present appeal vests with the Honble Company Court. The order was