( 1 ) THIS is an application of the Official Liquidator moved on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Thermo Prints Ltd. (for short "the Company") seeking recall of the order dated 20/3/1990 passed by Mahesh Chandra, J. in C. A. No. 7567 of 1989 whereby leave was granted to the first respondent to file a suit under Rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.

( 2 ) THE applicant hindustan Thermo Prints Ltd. is a company in liquidation in respect of which winding up order was passed on February 24, 1986 in Company Petition No. 62 of 1983 filed by Thomas Cook India Ltd, an unsecured creditor of the company .

( 3 ) THE first respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of England and has its registered office at Bristol, England. This respondent supplied plant and machinery to the company .

( 4 ) THE second respondent M/s. Polar Chem-Coats is the auction purchaser of the assets of the company .

( 5 ) THE third respondent is Grindlays Bank which gave a loan to the tune of Rs. 2,01,15,000. 00 to the company . Like other financial institutions, namely, Bank of America, National Trust and Saving Association, the Pradeshiya Indus- trial Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh (PIC UP) and Vijaya Bank, the Grindlays Bank is also a secured creditor and a mortgagor in respect of the land, building, plant and machinery of the company.

1. A confirmed letter of credit for sterling pound 581,940 to be opened by the company with a recognised Lon- don bank against presentation of documents.

2. A second confirmed irrevocable letter of credit for sterling pound 29,097 to be opened by the company with a recognised London bank prior to the shipment of the above said articles from U. K. so that payment coincides with the arrival of the technical team in India for installation of the machinery.

3. Balance of 29,097 pounds to be paid by the com- pany to the first respondent not later than December 31, 1982, the exact time to be agreed upon by both the parties around the middle of 1982.

( 6 ) THE first respondent claims that while it had received payment under the first letter of credit, the remaining payments in respect of two instalments of pound sterling 29,097 each pertaining to invoice no. 35191 dated 22/12/1981 and invoice no. 352061 dated 24/12/1981, were not made by the company . As per the first respondent, the company on November 14, 1981, earlier to the issue of above said two invoices, had informed the former that due to deficiency of rupees six million in the project cost the latter had been forced to defer the payment of two instalments to July 1982 and August 1982. Subsequently the first respondent by its letter dated 28/9/1982 reminded the company for settling the dues. The company by its letter dated 6/10/1982, however, informed the first respondent that the date of payment of the two instalments can be decided by the parties across the table. As per the stand of the first respondent, it made several oral as well as written requests to the company to pay the unpaid bal- ance but without any tangible results.

( 7 ) ON May 25, 1983, Thomas Cook Ltd. , an unsecured creditor of the company , filed a company petition no. 62/83 under Section 434 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 seek- ing winding up of the company with the allegation that the company was indebted to it in a sum of Rs. 1,06,039 along- with interest accrued thereon at the rate of 18% per annum and the company had failed to pay the outstanding amount despite repeated demands. Besides, it was claimed that the company was insolvent and was not in a position to pay its debts. On May 18, 1984 the company petition was admitted and citation was directed to be issued in the Statesman, Vir Arjun and Delhi Gazette. Thereafter, on February 14, 1986, this court directed the winding up of the company as the company failed to discharge its liability owed to Thomas Cook Ltd. and the Official Liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the