This is an application taken out by the official liquidator for determination of the rights of many of the respondents to this application who are claiming preferential rights over the sale proceeds of the various vehicles belonging to the company in liquidation and sold by the official liquidator with the consent of such respondents and by orders of court. He has also sought a relief for determination of the rights of priority inter se between such respondents, as according to him, amongst the respondents one or the other of them claims that he is entitled to be paid the entire amount due and payable to him in priority to others who might have a preferential right to ask for the sale proceeds now in the hands of the official liquidator. In so far as the latter prayer of the official liquidator for determination of the rights inter se between the respondents is concerned, it is completely outside the scope of this court as a company court. Even if it were to be held ultimately that the respondents' claim to be declared as preferential creditors is well-founded, the forum in which the issues that might arise as between the respondents themselves as to who amongst them have to be preferred in the matter of such payment of the sale proceeds now in the hands of the official liquidator, notwithstanding the fact that it is justifiable, cannot be agitated in a summary proceeding like the one that is being enquired into by this court under the Companies Act, 1956. As such rights of preference inter se amongst the respondents have to be determined in another forum and not by this court as a company court, I am not persuaded to consider this aspect of the prayer in the judge's summons. In the instant case however in the ultimate analysis of the facts, the general proposition set out above should give way to avoid multiplicity of actions. I shall advert to this laterIt is common ground that the vehicles in question were handed over to the official liquidator or otherwise secured by him under section 456 of the Companies Act and it is also not disputed that in order to avoid further damage to the vehicles and also to secure the best possible price as early as possible for such vehicles which were by then not put on the road for a considerable length of time, they were sold under orders of court and the official liquidator has, after incurring the necessary expenditure, effected such a sale publicly and has obtained the moneys therefrom and such sale proceeds are now in his custody. Ordinarily, the official liquidator would be entitled to retain this money for the benefit of the general body of creditors. But as many of the respondents to this application projected rights before him as preferential creditors or as charge-holders over the erstwhile vehicles, he is seeking the necessary directions from this court for determination of the quality and quantity of rights so put forward by many of the respondents to this application. It is necessary to set out the succinct facts so as to appreciate the compass of the issues between the parties. It may be noted that the Commissioner of Police filed a report through the Government Pleader, Madras, furnishing particulars with regard to the vehicles in question. Such particulars furnished by the Commissioner of Police read in the context of events, disclose that the company was indiscriminately dealing with the lorries by approaching one or the other of the respondents from time to time and on the foot of false 'C' certificates, forged documents and by representations made by the managing director on behalf of the company, the company secured the vehicles or secured finances over the vehicles already owned by them. The modus operandi of the managing director appears to be either to execute a deed of hypothecation in favour of such financiers or banks who lend moneys to the company through him or by executing hire purchase agreements in favour of such financiers or banks. One thing, howev