D. A. MEHTA, J. All the appeals have been taken up for hearing and disposal together as admittedly they arise out of common order made by the Company Court in Official Liquidator Report No. 12 of 2006 with Company Application No. 575 of 2006 decided on 28th March, 2008. As the parties have referred to the documents from papers of 0.1. Appeal No. 142 of 2008, the said appeal has been treated as the lead matter and the brief facts necessary for the present, have been taken from the said appeal. The appellant of O.J. Appeal No. 142 of 2008 is State Bank of India, a secured creditor of the Company (in liquidation), Commercial Ahmedabad Mills Company Ltd. The appellant of O.J. Appeal No. 113 of 2008 is the Textile Labour Association, while O.J. Appeal No. 137 of 2008 has been filed by the Official Liquidator.

2. The Company (in liquidation) was ordered to be wound-up on 11-10-1989 vide order made in Company Petition No. 117 of 1989. It appears that prior thereto on 31st August, 1976 the land owner, namely, the Mills Company filed Form No. I under Sec. 6(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.L.C. Act') in relation to the land bearing Survey Nos. 39 and 41 of Dariyapur Kazipur, Ahmedabad. On 31st December, 1982, notice under Sec. 8(3) of U.L.C. Act was issued to the erstwhile Company and was stated to have been received by the said Company. On 31st December, 1983, the erstwhile Company replied to the said notice inter alia stating that there was construction on the land in question and application made under Sec. 20 of the V.L.C. Act to the State Government was pending.

3. Admittedly, pursuant to order of winding-up, on 4-12-1989 the Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the Company. Thereafter, on differej1t dates notices under different provisions of the U. L. C. Act are shown to have been issued and served according to the competent authority on the Official Liquidator and according to the Official Liquidator, the notices were addressed to the erstwhile Company and not to the Official Liquidator. In light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt, it has not been found necessary to enter into any discussion on the respective contentions in this regard leaving it open for the parties to raise their respective contentions. Suffice it to state that, according to the competent authority under the U. L. C. Act, possession of the land in question was taken over on 15-5-1992.

4. Before the Company Court on 3-12-1999 sale of plant, machinery and other movables of the Company (in liquidation), came to be confirmed. Similarly, vide order dated 5-2-2003, the Company Court confirmed the sale of building and superstructure standing on the land. On 16-1-2006 an advertisement was issued for sale of land in question and on 13-2-2006, the Official Liquidator tendered report vide O.L.R. No. 12 of 2006 for confirmation of sale in relation to land admeasuring approximately 27,741 sq. meters. The Official Liquidator also prayed for ratification of his action in impleading the State Government in the said proceedings of the report filed by him.

5. After hearing the parties, the Court formulated the following three questions :-

"Questions raised before the Court for its determination are as to whether competent authority under the U. L. C. Act was required to obtain leave under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, before initiating proceedings under U.L.C. Act, more particularly, from the stage of Sec. 10(5) onwards of the Act and what would be the effect or consequences of such proceedings if leave is not obtained. The second question needs to be answered is whether alleged possession acquired by the State Government under U. L. C. Act can be sustained despite the fact that actual and physical possession of the land in question is found with the Official Liquidator. Lastly, if the actual and physical possession is with the Official Liquidator, can it be protected by virtue of the provisions