The subsequent positive developments in the company's financial position, including the positive net worth and settlement of dues with creditors, justified a reconsideration of the winding up order.

SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

( 1 ) ON a recommendation of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B. I. F. R.) vide its order dated 14. 2. 1990, M/s. Cawnpore Chemical Works (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter called as respondent company) and upon dismissal of appeal preferred by respondent company before the appellate authority on 8. 2. 1991, the respondent company was wound up, by an order of this court dated 2. 5. 1991, and Official Liquidator was appointed as liquidator for conducting winding up proceedings.

( 2 ) A Writ Petition No. 9441 of 19. 91 was filed by respondent company challenging the orders of b. I. F. R. and A. A. I. F. R. By an interim order dated 3. 9. 1991, the operation of appellate order was stayed. Subsequently, by another ex parte order dated 3. 2. 1994, the order dated 14. 2. 1990 passed by B. I. F. R. was also stayed. An application (A-17) was filed on behalf of the company in Misc. Company Application No. 1 of 1991 praying that winding up order dated 2. 5. 1991 be kept in abeyance on account of the stay orders passed in the above writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for respondent company and official liquidator, this Court vide its order dated 2. 11. 1994 directed that the winding up order dated 2. 5. 1991 shall remain in abeyance till further orders of this Court.

( 3 ) ON 16. 7. 1992, the respondent company entered into an agreement with a society named as uttar Railway Sahkari Avas Samiti, Kanpur for selling 51,730 sq. mts. of land situate in the factory premises of 84/63, Anwarganj, Kanpur for a sum of Rs. 5 crores, out of which, Rs. 27. 98 lakhs had been received as advance payment. The respondent company had disposed of scraps, machineries, raw materials and chemicals stored in the factory premises at Kanpur and had utilized the said amount for clearing a substantial part of the liabilities of company. After counter-affidavit (A-22) was filed by Official Liquidator, this Court by order dated 2. 11. 1994 directed the company not to sell any other movable and immovable properties of the company situate at Kanpur till further orders of the Court. The respondent company was required to give details of the name of the parties. It appears that some sale deeds were executed without seeking permission and approval of the Court and the possession was given on which proceedings for disobeying the orders of this Court were initiated in which by an order dated 11. 7. 1996, this court found the Directors of the company to be guilty, but accepting their apology, took lenient view and imposed Rs. 500 as fine. Thereafter by an order dated 30. 5. 1997, application A-24 was allowed permitting respondent company to sell the land, as aforesaid and after the execution of the sale deeds, the entire sale consideration be deposited with the Official Liquidator and disbursement be made to creditors with the consent of Court. These conditions modified the order dated 30. 5. 1997. Upto 30. 8. 1997, 16185 sq. yds. were sold and an amount of Rs. 1,25,35,000. 00 was deposited with Official Liquidator.

( 4 ) UNITED Commercial Bank, a secured creditor, settled its dues with the company vide letter dated 4. 11. 1999 for Rs. 35 crores. On Application No. 80777 of 1999, a direction was issued to official Liquidator on 24. 11. 1999 to release and disburse the sum of Rs. 1,25,35,000. 00 to UCO bank and the balance amount was required to be paid by the directors of Company from their own resources. It is submitted that the entire amount, as settled towards full and final payment, was paid to UCO Bank within time. UCO Bank is, however, not satisfied and claimed Rs. 23,32,424. 00 towards the interest earned on the deposit with the Official Liquidator and thus it moved an application A-50 demanding the aforesaid amount over and above the amount paid to them. The application was rejected on 6. 1. 2000 against which a special appeal had been filed by uco Bank, which is said to be pending before a Division Bench of this Court. The bank, how