Bombay High Court
Forwarding P. Ltd. And Another vs Trustees, Port Of Vizagapatnam, And ... on 23 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: [1987]61COMPCAS513(BOM)
JUDGMENT
1. These two company applications, one being Company Application No. 237 of 1985, and the other being Company Application No. 282 of 1985, are taken out in Company Petition No. 112 of 1983. I shall first deal with the subject-matter of Company Application No. 282 of 1985, and then with Company Application No. 237 of 1985.
2. The facts that give rise to Company Application No. 282 of 1985, are that the New India Fisheries Ltd., a company now in liquidation, was seized and possessed of several properties including five fishing trawlers. These five fishing trawlers were seized by the Vizagapatnam Port Authorities on July 3, 1982, for non-payment of their bills. The Port Authorities then put up these trawlers for auction on two occasions, but the auction did not materialise. On March 15, 1984, a winding-up order was passed in respect of this company. Thereafter, the official liquidator called a meeting on April 3, 1984, when, amongst others, only one director was present so also a representative of the Bank of India being one of the secured creditors of the company. In that meeting, the official liquidator was told that efforts were being made to set aside the winding-up order and/or in any event that a scheme of compromise or arrangement would be presented. Some question about arrangements of security guards for the company property was also discussed. Thereafter, another meeting was held on May 19, 1984, and, amongst others, one Mr. Choksey of Bank of Baroda was also present. The official liquidator was then informed that Bank of Baroda was also a secured creditor and that the said bank had already filed a suit against the New India Fisheries Ltd., being Suit No. 1135 of 1985, for recovery of their dues. In so far as Bank of India was concerned, the official liquidator was informed that Bank of India was considering its position and would revert to the matter. The official liquidator then held yet another meeting on June 16, 1984, and whilst other matters pertaining to this company were discussed, there was no reference made to the trawlers. After the said meeting, the official liquidator addressed two letters to the Port Trust, one dated August 21, 1984, and, the other dated September 5, 1984, inter alia, informing the Port Authorities, Vizagapatnam, that the company was taken in winding-up, and the Port Authorities could not proceed to sell the trawlers at all and/or in any event without the leave of the court. The official liquidator then held another meeting on November 13, 1984, when one Mr. Narsimhan of Bank of India was present. The minutes of this meeting show that a representative of one of the ex-directors of the company had appeared and asked for an adjournment. This application for an adjournment was, however, refused on the ground that the ex-directors were not attending the meetings, but were asking for adjournments on each occasion. At this meeting, several matters concerning the property of the company were considered. So also were matters pertaining to the company's movable properties including trawlers. The minutes of this meeting in so far as the trawlers are concerned read as follows :
"Mr. Narsimhan of Bank of India states that the representative of official liquidator need not proceed now to Vishakhapatnam to take possession of the trawlers lying there over which they claim charge and that the bank would inform the official liquidator the further course of action to be taken by 26-11-1984." (reproduced as recorded)
3. Two other meetings were then held, i.e., on December 3, 1984, and December 4, 1984. Yet another meeting was held on January 15, 1985, more particularly to ascertain the advances made by the Bank of India against the five trawlers lying at Vizagapatnam. The relevant portion of the minutes reads as follows :
"As regards trawlers, Mr. Nanda says that the question of consent to sale of the said trawlers by the official liquidator will be considered by bank's solicitors M/s. Mulla & Mulla, Advocates and Solicitors, who will be visiting this office on January 17, 1985. Shri Nanda also clarifies in case there is a viable scheme forthcoming from any sponsor, the bank would consider favourably the same." (reproduced as recorded)
4. It appears that thereafter one Mr. Winston G. Vaz, an ex-director of the company, addressed a letter dated February 4, 1985, to the official liquidator. This letter came up for discussion in the meeting of February 20, 1985, held by the official liquidator. Thereafter on February 26, 1985, an advertisement was inserted by the Port Authorities stating that the trawlers would be put up for auction. It appears that thereafter, the said Mr. Winston G. Vaz, ex-director of the company, addressed some letters to the official liquidator and these came to be discussed in the meeting held on March 15, 1985. In view of the several contentions raised by the said Vaz, he was informed that if he wanted to take steps in respect of the trawlers, he may adopt such proceedings as he chose.
5. In view of what transpired at the said meeting on March 15, 1985, it appears that the official liquidator was persuaded to adopt proceedings seeking stay of the sale of the trawlers by the Port Trust, more especially as no individual could possibly make an application in respect of the trawlers, the company being in liquidation. On this footing, the official liquidator asked Mr. G. Vishwanath, advocate, who appeared for the company in liquidation and who was acting for Mr. Vaz and the other directors, to adopt proceedings. It is in these circumstances that Company Application No. 78 of 1985 was taken out on March 18, 1985. In the said company application, two prayers were made : (a) That the trustees of the Port of Vizagapatnam be restrained from holding any auction of the said trawlers, and (b) for interim reliefs. When the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985, came up for hearing, an objection was raised, that Mr. Vishwanath was an advocate for the company in liquidation and he was not acting in the interest of the creditors. In view of this submission, Mr. Vishwanath applied for liberty to withdraw his appearance which was granted. The petitioners' attorneys, M/s. Satpute & Co., then took charge of the said proceedings.
6. It appears that thereafter, the official liquidator consulted Mr. Ashok Modi, a senior counsel of this Bar with regard to the merits of this Company Application No. 78 of 1985. This Company application No. 78 of 1985, then came on board on July 25, 1985, when Mr. Satpute appeared and applied for withdrawal of this Company Application No. 78 of 1985, albeit in view of the advice from the senior counsel. The application for withdrawal was opposed by Mr. Vishwanath who appeared at that time. He also applied that Mr. Vaz of M/s. Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd., who were the principal creditors of the company in liquidation should be heard in the matter and should be allowed to intervene. At this stage, Mr. Vishwanath had not filed any vakalatnama on behalf of the persons who were seeking to intervene. In view of this, the following order was passed :
"There is no substance in this contention. If Vaz Forwarding Co. has any interest, as they claim, they would be at liberty to adopt separate proceedings. In view of this, judge's summons dismissed with costs to the respondents. It may be added here that Mr. Vishwanath has not filed his vakalatnama in this judge's summons on behalf of the said Vaz Forwarding Co. and he has really no locus standi to appear in this matter. In view of this, no order is necessary on the report of the official liquidator dated April 30, 1985. The other report dated April 30, 1985, of the official liquidator be heard on August 1, 1985. The sale not to take place for a period of one week from today."
7. A company application dated October 8, 1985, was then taken out by M/s. Vaz Forwarding Co. Pvt. Ltd., which came to be numbered as Company Application No. 237 of 1985. In this company application (which is on board today), Vaz Forwarding Co. Pvt. Ltd., have asked for an order that the Port of Vizagapatnam be directed to hand over possession of the five trawlers to the applicants, i.e. Vaz Forwarding Co. Pvt. Ltd., and for an interim order restraining the Port Authorities from selling the property. Thereafter, M/s. Vaz Forwarding Co. Pvt. Ltd., purporting to act on the basis of the liberty granted under the order dated July 25, 1985 took out another company application dated December 2, 1985, which has come to be numbered as Company Application No. 282 of 1985, Today, at the hearing of this Company Application No. 282 of 1985, Mr. Vishwanath, has tendered an affidavit in rejoinder. I have, however, not taken the same on file as it contains matters not germane to the disposal of these company applications and otherwise contains a wanton attack on the official liquidator.
8. As stated earlier, I shall first deal with the subject-matter of Company Application No. 282 of 1985, and thereafter Company Application No. 237 of 1985.
9. Mr. Viswanath, the learned advocate for the applicant in Company Application No. 282 of 1985, stated that the applicant in the said company application sought an inquiry against the official liquidator as the applicant contended that the withdrawal of Company Application No. 78 of 1985, by the official liquidator was illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and not in the interest of the company, and for more than one reason.
10. Mr. Vishwanath contended that the Port of Vizagapatnam had advertised that they would put up these five trawlers for auction on March 19, 1985. That it is the light of this that 9 summonses dated March 18, 1985, which came to be numbered as Company Application No. 78 of 1985, was taken out, seeking to restrain the authorities of the Port of Vizagapatnam from selling the said five trawlers. That affidavit in support of that summons was sworn by Mr. Mittal, the official liquidator. That the grounds made out in the affidavit were that the valuers evaluated the five trawlers at about Rs. 50 lakhs or thereabouts although its value was in fact about Rs. 80 lakhs. Secondly, that no notice of arrest was given to him before the arrest. That despite having taken this stand, the official liquidator on July 25, 1985, withdrew the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985. That this withdrawal led to two consequences, one that the official liquidator had abdicated his rights in favour of the Trustees of the Port of Vizagapatnam and/or otherwise refused to exercise his powers in respect of the company's property. That the second consequence was even more serious, viz., that in view of this withdrawal, the trustees of the Port of Vizagapatnam did not have to apply to this court for leave to sell the trawlers. That if the Port Authorities had been obliged to apply for leave, they would have had to satisfy the court on several issues amongst them being (a) as to why the port authorities waited for 3 1/2 years before they sought to sell the trawlers, (b) as to why when their claim in June, 1984, was Rs. 19,179.40, it jumped up to Rs. 30,384.06 as on April 30, 1985, (c) that whilst they, the Port Trust Authorities, had arrested the vessel under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and had detained the same and in view of the provisions of section 43(1) sub-clause (ii) and were hence under an obligation to look after the property as a bailee, they did not act reasonably and diligently in that capacity, (d) since they were bailees, whether it was not due to their negligence that two of the trawlers went under the sea, (e) whether the company was liable to pay the salvage costs of the two vessels claimed at Rs. 5 lakhs, (f) whether in fact the Post Trust incurred a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as salvage charges, (g) whether by reason of the negligence of the Port Trust, the company had not come to suffer damages which according to the applicant herein were over Rs. 60 lakhs, (h) whether the company had a counterclaim in the said amount against the Port Trust. Mr. Vishwanath further submitted that not only this but the official liquidator in withdrawing Company Application No. 78 of 1985, prevented an inquiry as to whether the amounts claimed by the Port Trust were in fact due. Mr. Vishwanath submitted that all this must establish only one fact that the act of the official liquidator in withdrawing Company Application No. 78 of 1985 was not only wrongful, illegal and mala fide but in direction of his duties and against the interest of the Company.
11. Mr. Vishwanath next urged that the official liquidator had deferred taking possession of the trawlers at the behest and at the instance of the Bank of India who claim to be secured creditors and in their interest and against the interest of the company in liquidation. That company Application No. 78 of 1985, was also withdrawn to achieve this purpose. Elaborating on this, Mr. Vishwanath contended that at the initial stages, the office of the official liquidator maintained that the authorities of Port of Vizagapatnam could not sell the five trawlers although attached by them more particularly in the absence of port authorities not having obtained leave from this court under section 446 of the Companies Act. That the official liquidator addressed two letters, one dated August 21, 1984, and the other dated September 5, 1984, to the effect. However, later there was a marked change in the attitude of the official liquidator inasmuch as he made no effort to take possession of the trawlers from the port authorities. That the official liquidator was in fact deferring the taking of possession of the trawlers as the official liquidator was being guided by the Bank of India and acting at their behest and protecting the bank's interest rather than the interest of the company in liquidation. That this was evident from the minutes of the meeting on November 13, 1984, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows :
"Mr. Narsimhan of Bank of India states that the representative of official liquidator need not proceed now to Vishakhapatnam to take possession of the trawlers lying there over which they claim charge and that the bank would inform the official liquidator the further course of action to be taken by 26-11-1984." (reproduced as recorded). That this record must clearly demonstrate that the official liquidator was awaiting instructions from the bank authorities as to whether he should wait to take possession of the trawlers or as to what he should do with the trawlers.
12. Then again, in the meeting of January 15, 1985, what has been recorded is as follows :
"As regards trawlers, Mr. Nanda says that the question of consent to sale of the said trawlers by the official liquidator will be considered by bank's solicitors M/s. Mulla & Mulla, Advocates and Solicitors who will be visiting this office on January 17, 1985. Shri Nanda also clarifies in case there is a viable scheme forthcoming from any sponsor the bank would consider favourably the same." (reproduced as recorded)
13. That this too must clearly go to show that the official liquidator was not prepared to take any action in this matter, but was ready to wait till the bank authorities consulted their solicitors and communicated that advice to the official liquidator on which the official liquidator would act.
14. Mr. Vishwanath contended that what was of significance to note was the attorneys who were acting for the Port of Vizagapatnam were the same as the attorneys who were appearing for the Bank of India and Mr. Makhija who was appearing for the Port of Vizagapatnam was also acting at one time for the official liquidator. Mr. Vishwanath contended that in Company Application No. 78 of 1985, the official liquidator had sought a stay of the sale of five trawlers, but when the application came up for hearing, the official liquidator hastened to withdraw the same and the only inference that can now be drawn is that the official liquidator was out to protect the interest of one of the creditors, but was certainly not acting in the interest of the company. That it is in the circumstances that this Company Application No. 282 of 1985 had been taken out questioning the propriety and legality of the official liquidator in withdrawing the Company Application No. 78 of 1985.
15. Shortly put, Mr. Vishwanath's arguments is two-fold : (a) that the official liquidator in withdrawing the Company Application No. 78 of 1985 had absolved the Port Authorities from applying for leave under section 446 of the Companies Act giving then a free hand to deal with the trawlers belonging to the company and secondly that the official liquidator had withdrawn the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985 acting in collusion with Bank of India and/or at their behest and in dereliction of his duties.
16. I am, however, unable to accept either of these arguments. In the first instance, it is an admitted position that the arrest by the Port Authorities of Vizagapatnam is in pursuance of powers under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The same reads as follows :
"64. (1) If the master of any vessel in respect of which any rates or penalties are payable under this Act, or under any regulations or orders made in pursuance thereof, refuses or neglects to pay the same or any part thereof on demand, the Board may distrain or arrest such vessel and the tackle, apparel and furniture belonging thereto, or any part thereof, and detain the same until the amount so due to the Board, together with such further amount as may accrue for any period during which the vessel is under distraint or arrest, is paid."
17. Hence the power of arrest and sale emanate from the statute itself. There is no question of the Port Authorities resorting to a legal proceeding for the said purpose. What section 446 of the Companies Act contemplates is that when a winding-up order is made and/or the official liquidator has been appointed a provisional liquidator, no suit or legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of winding-up order, be proceeded with, against the company except by leave of the court. In the present case, there is no question of the Port Authorities wishing to file a suit or adopting any other legal proceedings, or proceeding with any pending suit or legal proceedings and hence the question of their obtaining leave under section 446 of the Companies Act does not arise. The whole argument, therefore, of Mr. Vishwanath that but for the withdrawal of Company Application No. 78 of 1985, it would have been obligatory on the Port Trust Authorities to obtain leave, and for that they would have to answer several of the issues (stated by him) before they could get leave, must fall to the ground. The allegation that the official liquidator by withdrawing Company Application No. 78 of 1985 had made it possible for the Port Trust Authorities to deal with the property in the manner they like and that the official liquidator had acted wrongfully, illegally, and/or with mala fides or in dereliction of his duties cannot survive. In passing, it may here be observed that Mr. Vishwanath's contention that in view of the provisions of section 43, the Port Authorities held the ship as bailees is wholly misconceived as the said section 43 applies to goods and not to vessels.
18. This takes me to the second limb of Mr. Vishwanath's argument, viz., that the official liquidator was acting at the behest of Bank of India who claimed to be secured creditors and was protecting the bank's interest rather than working in the interest of the company in liquidation and that the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985 was also withdrawn to achieve the said object. That all this was manifest from the minutes of the meetings convened by the official liquidator.
19. Now turning to the minutes of the meeting held by the official liquidator, Mr. Vishwanath's first grievance is that in the meeting of April 3, 1984, only one director was called, i.e., Mr. Winston G. Vaz, and he happened to be the ex-director of the company. That no other directors were called. This is clearly falsified by the official liquidator's record which goes to show that notice of this meeting was given to the other directors but that they did not remain present. The statement of Mr. Vishwanath that no notice was given to other directors is hence wholly incorrect.
20. As regards Mr. Viswanath's comment that the minutes of the meeting of November 13, 1984, and January 15, 1985, must show that the official liquidator was deferring taking possession of the trawlers at the instance of the bank, it would be necessary to turn to the minutes. The minutes of the said meeting dated November 13, 1984, show that a representative of the ex-director of the Company had come stating that Mr. Winston G. Vaz, was ill and Mr. Marrie was out of station and an adjournment was sought. The official liquidator seems to have refused the adjournment on the ground that the directors and ex-directors of the company were not attending any meeting but only kept on seeking adjournments and were not in fact co-operating with him. The next question that was taken up was about the movable and immovable property which was charged with Bank of Baroda and the minutes show that what was discussed that the bank offered to send a representative of the bank with the representative of the official liquidator to Cochin, the measures to be adopted to safeguard the properties of the company at Cochin, the evaluation of the said properties and the question of costs. As regards the trawlers, one Mr. Narsimhan of Bank of India who appears to have been present at the meeting stated that the trawlers seem to have stood charged in favour of Bank of India and the bank would apprise the official liquidator of the action that the bank contemplates to take in respect of these trawlers. This is far from saying that the official liquidator at the behest of the bank did not move further in the matter to take possession of the trawlers. The argument of Mr. Vishwanath is based on a total misreading of the minutes.
21. Turning to the minutes of the meeting of March 15, 1985, as stated earlier, this meeting was held more particularly to consider the letter dated February 21, 1985, received from M/s. Little and Co. as also a report from Winston Gregory Vaz, an ex-director of the company. A discussion appears to have taken place on the basis of these letters and the topic of the authorities of the Port of Vizagapatnam holding an auction of these trawlers on March 19, 1985, was also discussed. It appears that at this meeting, Mr. Vaz informed the official liquidator that a scheme of compromise was being proposed and in view of this the sale by the Port authorities ought to be stopped. However, as auction was fixed about four days away, i.e., on March 19, 1985, what has come to be recorded is as follows :
"As regards trawlers, Mr. Nanda says that the question of consent to sale of the said trawlers by the official liquidator will be considered by banks's solicitors, M/s. Mulla & Mulla, advocates and solicitors, who would be visiting this office on January 17, 1985. Shri Nanda also clarifies in case there is a viable scheme forthcoming from any sponsor the bank would consider favourably the same." (reproduced as recorded)
22. I do not see how on the basis of these minutes, Mr. Vishwanath can possibly argue that the official liquidator was adopting the line laid down by Bank of India and was not discharging his duties.
23. Assuming that the minutes are to be read in the light and the manner in which Mr. Vishwanath wishes to, the very fact that the official liquidator was persuaded to take out the judge's summons which came to be numbered as Company Application No. 78 of 1985, on March 18, 1985, and that too by appointing Mr. Vishwanath, advocate, who was acting for the company or its directors as advocate for the official liquidator must fail the charge which Mr. Vishwanath has pressed so vehemently that the official liquidator was acting at the behest of the bank, a secured creditor, and at its dictates and not in the interest of the company. The scurrilous attack on the official liquidator must fail.
24. But be that as it may, the tirade of Mr. Vishwanath against the official liquidator is serious and to examine if the same can be sustained it would be necessary to turn to Company Application No. 78 of 1985. Prayer (a) thereof reads as follows :
"That the auction sale intended to be held on March 19, 1985, or any other day pursuant to the arrest under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act by the respondents of the five fishing trawlers, namely, F. T. Marine victor, F. T. Sea Fox, F. T. Konchu, F. T. Sudha-3 and Sudha-4, lying at the fishing harbour, Vizagapatnam Port Trust, Vizagapatnam be stayed."
25. Prayer (b) is for an ad interim order in terms of prayer (a) and prayer (c) is for costs. On the very face of it, it is abundantly clear that the prayers set forth in the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985 are in the nature of interim prayers and cannot be granted. Even if it be assumed that prayer (a) as to be the question that must arise are as to what is to happen to the proceedings adopted by the Port Trust Authorities under section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, and what is to happen to the arrest under that section ? As stated earlier, the prayers set forth are clearly in the nature of interim reliefs and could never have been granted. The company application is without any sequitor.
26. It would be convenient at this stage to advert to the affidavit in support of this Company Application No. 78 of 1985 dated March 18, 1985. This affidavit has been drawn up by Mr. Viswanath who was then acting on behalf of the official liquidator and has now been acting on behalf of the directors and/or ex-directors. In this affidavit what is stated is that the valuers had evaluated the trawlers at Rs. 55,25,000 as on April 12, 1979, but the official liquidator was told that the trawlers were worth Rs. 80,00,000. Nothing has been stated as to from where the official liquidator got this information and the only inference that can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that this information incorporated in the said affidavit by Mr. Vishwanath was one told by the directors or ex-directors of the company and the official liquidator has been made to say this. The second grievance incorporated in the affidavit is that no notice before the arrest of the said vessels had been given be the official liquidator and hence the Port Authorities of Vizagapatnam could not proceed to sell the property. However, Mr. Vishwanath has now conceded that the five trawlers were auctioned by the Port authorities as far back as 1982, i.e. much before the official liquidator came on the scene, hence no question of the Port authorities giving any notice before arrest to the official liquidator arises. The grievance in this affidavit is of no value.
27. The third grievance made in the said affidavit is that no reserved bid was provided by the Port Trust and hence the then intended sale would be invalid. But there is nothing in the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 which requires that any reserves bid should be provided. The grievance, therefore, is of no substance. It is, therefore, obvious that all sorts of contentions were put forth in the said affidavit to achieve one object, viz., to stall the sale by the Port authorities. Ordinarily, I would have refrained from dealing with the said affidavit but for the comment made thereon by Mr. Vishwanath that the act of the official liquidator in withdrawing Company Petition No. 78 of 1985, was illegal, wrongful, arbitrary and mala fide.
28. Mr. Ashok Modi, learned counsel appearing for the official liquidator, pointed out that irrespective of the stand taken in the two letters of the official liquidator, i.e. letters dated August 21, 1984, and September 5, 1984, it was abundantly clear that the Port Trust Authorities were within their right in arresting the vessels and putting them up for sale. That the prayers contained in Company Application No. 78 of 1985 apart from being of an interim nature, could never be granted. That the said company application was wholly defective and misconceived and would have only resulted in the company being mulcted with costs. That the official liquidator was, therefore, advised to withdraw the said application and it was accordingly withdrawn. All this must indicate that the action of the official liquidator was in the best interest of the company and not against the interest of the company in liquidation as tried to be spelt out by Mr. Vishwanath. The charge, therefore, that the official liquidator had acted illegally, wrongfully or was acting against the interest of the company or in the interest of any one creditor or that his act in withdrawing Company Petition No. 78 of 1985 was wrongful, illegal, arbitrary or mala fide must fail.
29. Mr. Vishwanath lastly contended that the Port Authorities had waited for over three years before putting up the trawlers for sale. That the arrest by them must be deemed to have come to an end by efflux of time. In any event, if the power of sale has been enjoined on them by statute, they must exercise them in a reasonable time and if not their powers must stand extinguished. Mr. Viswanath further submitted that in any event, the Port Trust was not vested with untrammelled powers and were not entitled to put up the trawlers in question for sale after three years, and the official liquidator ought to have pressed the Company Application No. 78 of 1985 and prayed for the reliefs mentioned therein. That the withdrawal of Company Application No. 78 of 1985 by the Official liquidator was wrongful, illegal, and arbitrary.
30. The contention is of no merit. Barring making assertions, Mr. Viswanath has not been able to point out anything which can support him in his contention that if the sale is not held in a reasonable time, the arrest would come to an end by efflux of time and/or that the power of sale conferred by statute on the Port Authorities would stand extinguished. He has not even been able to state as to how the powers of sale conferred by statute on the Port Trust can be said to be untrammelled. As stated earlier, the official liquidator has, in seeking a withdrawal of the said company application, taken legal advice and has acted conscientiously.
31. What emanates from the discussion then is that the action of the official liquidator in withdrawing Company Application No. 78 of 1985 was as per independent legal advice obtained by him and he has acted conscientiously. That the official liquidator was somehow persuaded to take out the said company Application No. 78 of 1985 and significantly the same was by an advocate who was acting on behalf of the company and/or its directors or ex-directors. That the said Company Application No. 78 of 1985 having been withdrawn by the official liquidator, the present Company Application No. 282 of 1985 has been adopted to achieve the same object as Company Application No. 78 of 1985 or, to put it differently, to revive the said application by this oblique method and reagitate the subject-matter thereof. All this is of course done at the cost of a scurrilous attack on the official liquidator and charging him with dereliction of his duties. This Company Application No. 282 of 1985 is hence nothing else but an abuse of the process of the court and must stand dismissed.
32. In so far as Company Application No. 237 of 1985 is concerned, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant stated that he does not wish to argue this matter inasmuch as he is adopting Mr. Vishwanath's arguments canvassed in Company Application No. 282 of 1985. In view of this submission of Mr. Shah, Company Application No. 237 of 1985 also stands dismissed.
33. In the result, Company Application No. 282 of 1985 is dismissed. The applicant will pay the costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in separate sets. Company Application No. 237 of 1985 is also dismissed and the applicants therein will pay the costs of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in different sets. In so far as Bank of India who are respondents No. 3 in both the applications are concerned, I make no order as to costs.