R. MAHADEVAN, J.

This appeal is filed against the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2009 in A.Nos.318 of 2007 in I.P.Nos.134 and 77 of 2002, along with the other applications of the first respondent bank, allowing the claim of the bank to the extent of Rs.3,19,23,571.05 out of Rs.3,79,11,492.64, in respect of the sale of the appellant's property by way of public auction.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

(i) The appellant was declared as insolvent in two matters. The total claim arrived at by the bank was Rs.3,79,11,492.64. The interest rate claimed by the bank was based on the contractual agreement entered into between the bank and the insolvent. The amount claimed by the bank also includes law charges, paper publication charges and charges towards possession and auction. However, the Official Assignee while adjudicating the claim, took the balance amount due from both the borrower firms as on 26.11.2002, the date of adjudication of the borrowers as insolvents. Further, on the balance due as on 26.11.2002, the Official Assigned allowed simple interest at the rate of 16% p.a., and it was charged only upto the date of the first sale, ie. 18.05.2006. Thereafter, the Official Assignee deducted the entire Government commission of 7% on the total bid amount of Rs.7.02 crores also deducted the entire publication charges, valuer charges and auctioneer charges, thus deducting a total sum of Rs.59,01,847/- towards these heads. Thus, the claim made by the bank was ultimately allowed to the extent of Rs.2,21,27,251.23.

(ii) Aggrieved by the same, the bank filed the application in A.No.318 of 2007 to set aside the order of the Official Assignee dated 28.09.2007 passed in Claim No.166 of 2007 and also filed three more applications in respect of its claim. After a detailed perusal of the entire records and the relevant provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, the Companies Act, 1956, the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court arrived at the sum of Rs.3,48,54,887.47 as due and payable to the bank. Thereafter, holding that the bank is also liable to contribute to the share of Government commission and costs, this Court deducted a sum of Rs.29,30,316.42 out of Rs.3,48,54,887.47 and arrived at the net amount of Rs.3,19,23,571.05 which the bank is entitled to.

(iii) Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the appellant herein.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the application of the first respondent-bank, holding that the bank was not entitled to the entire claim made by it. It is his further submission that the Official Assignee had failed to notice that there were several discrepancies in the calculation of the amounts due, by the bank and the bank was not consistent in the maintenance of accounts, as different figures were reflected at different places for the amounts due on one date. The Official Assignee had failed to bring these discrepancies to the notice of the learned single Judge and had the Official Assignee brought this to the notice of the Court, the learned single Judge would have remanded the matter for fresh disposal, after ascertaining the correctness of the accounts. He stated that the learned single Judge erred in stating that the first respondent bank was entitled to the interest as claimed for. He further stated that the second respondent would not be entitled for interest at the contractual rate and in any rate, not compounded after the date of adjudication. It is his further submission that the learned single Judge ought not to have relied upon the provisions of the Companies Act while deciding the issues, as the legislative int