The engagement of counsel by the Official Liquidator requires prior court sanction, and failure to comply with procedural norms invalidates such appointments.

JUDGEMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

1. The appellant is practicing as an advocate having 45 years standing to his credit. He is a senior advocate of this Court but not ‘a designated senior counsel’.

2. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned company Judge in Official Liquidator Report No. 294 of 2011 in Official Liquidator Report No. 39 of 2006 dated 18/19-07-2012.

3. The prayers made in Office Liquidator Report No. 294 of 2011 in para-24, read as under :

“a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to ratify the action taken by the Official Liquidator in entrusting the briefs to Shri Roshan Desai, Advocate as Special Arguing Counsel in the cases mentioned in para 22 above on such fees as may be agreed to and approved by the Hon'ble Court;

b) Such other and further orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the matter, may also be passed.”

3.1 The Official Liquidator report no. 294 of 2011 was required to be filed in the circumstances, set out in para-16 onwards of that report. The same are reproduced for the ready perusal.

“16.

It is submitted that in case of Mardia Steel Ltd. (In Liquidation) in O.J. Appeal No. 8 of 2009, at the interim stage, since the advocate brief was not able to present the case of the Official Liquidator properly, an order was passed by the Hon'ble Court, sanctioning the scheme at the interim stage as also directing the Official liquidator to hand over possession. The Official Liquidator was constrained to prefer SLP, in which the Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash and set aside the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Court and issued direction to the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court to follow certain procedure and decide the issue afresh. It may also be stated that immediately within 15 days ARCIL issued a notice under Securitization Act for taking possession. The matter was entrusted to Panel Advocate who did not give proper reply. A Special civil Application was filed which was also entrusted to the advocate, which was also not handled properly.

(emphasis supplied)

17. In these circumstances, the Official Liquidator entrusted the Brief to Mr. Roshan Desai, Advocate. Shri Roshan Desai, Advocate, appeared in the hearing of the OJ Appeal No. 8 of 2009 and represented the case of the Official Liquidator and cited authorities. Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject the Appeal on 7 ^th October,s 2011. (emphasis supplied)

18. An application was filed by Mr. Rasiklal S. Mardia being Company Application No. 90 of 2010 for damages. Mr. Roshan Desai, Advocate was entrusted the brief and he presented the case of the Official Liquidator and at present the same is pending for decision of this Hon'ble Court.

19. In case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. (In Liquidation) also the Advocate appointed by the Official Liquidator at Mumbai did not handle the case properly.

Mr. Roshan Desai, Advocate was entrusted the brief and as per his advice, legal action is being initiated by the Official Liquidator to protect the interest of the Official Liquidator.

20. In case of the Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Mills Co. Ltd. (In liquidation) Official Liquidator's report 206 of 2008 was preferred praying that respondent be directed to comply with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court.

At the time of hearing, the Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that Official Liquidator's Report is drafted without applying mind and the Hon'ble Court has not given any direction which is to be complied with by the Respondent. Respondents were required to pay sum of Rs. 6.00 crore