Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by Mr. Pradeep D. Kothari, former Chairman of Kothari Orient Finance Limited (in short 'KOFL') , against the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2013, passed by the learned Company Judge, in C.A.No.734 of 2011.

1.1. Pertinently, the application, i.e., C.A.No.734 of 2011 was moved in Company Petition (C.P.)No.179 of 2001.

2. The reason that we chose to highlight this aspect of the matter, right at the outset, as an argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment and decree, by which, the Official Liquidator (in short 'the OL'), who was acting as the Provisional Liquidator (in short, 'the PL') was discharged, was passed only in C.P.No.179 of 2001, whereas, on the record of the Company Judge, there is, even now, another petition pending, whereby, winding up of KOFL is sought. In other words, the argument advanced is that dismissal of C.P.No.179 of 2001 will not bring about an efficacious conclusion even from the point view of KOFL.

2.1. We may also note that, the learned Company Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and decree, has also gone on to dismiss C.P.No.179 of 2001, though the prayer in C.A.No.734 of 2011 was confined only to the discharge of OL.

3. As to whether, such a direction could have been passed or not by the learned Company Judge, is also a matter in issue, as submissions, in this behalf, have been advanced on behalf of the appellant.

4. Before we proceed further, and in order to adjudicate upon the instant appeal, the following, broad, facts are required to be noticed.

4.1. C.P.No.179 of 2001 came to be filed by one Mr. S. Ramaiah, who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in the instant appeal. He, along with his wife, had deposited monies with KOFL. Since, there was a default not only qua the deposits made by respondent No.3 and his wife, but also vis-a-vis other depositors, several criminal complaints were filed by depositors, which numbered nearly 400, at one point in time.

4.2. In so far as respondent No.3 and his wife are concerned, they, as it appears, preferred aforementioned Company Petitions. As indicated above, respondent No.3's Company Petition is numbered as: C.P.No.179 of 2001. In so far as respondent No.3's wife, i.e., Mrs. R. Seethalakshmi, is concerned, her Company Petition is numbered as:C.P.No.180 of 2001. Both the Company Petitions, evidently, were filed under the provisions of Section 433 (e) and (f) and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the 1956 Act').

4.3. The record shows that the aforementioned Company Petitions were presented on 02.07.2001 and numbered on 01.08.2001. The Company Petitions came up for admission before the learned Company Judge on 05.12.2001, at which point they were admitted and directions were issued for appointment of OL attached to this Court as the PL of KOFL.

4.4. Furthermore, an Administrator was also appointed, based on an application moved, in that behalf.

4.5. We may also note that, while admitting the Company Petitions, vide order dated 05.12.2001, the learned Company Judge did make observations, (some of which were based on KOFL's stand in the Company Petitions), broadly, on the following lines :

i. That KOFL's liabilities were more than the available assets and receivables.

ii. Substantial amounts were payable to depositors.

iii. KOFL had also raised secured loans, which were outstanding.

iv. That KOFL had no objection to the Company Petitions being admitted and publication being ordered.

v. Furthermore, KOFL had no objection to the appointment of a PL and an Administrator to take charge and, manage its affairs.

4.6. We may also note that, the Court had considered an additional affidavit filed by the appellant, which adverted to two (2) Schemes, for repayment of amounts to depositors, albeit, over a period of 3/4 years. The Court observed that these Schemes were not acceptable to t