An order of winding up was passed in respect of M s. Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. in the said companypany petition on 5th of August, 1995.
It would be just and proper that the vessel is sold jointly by the appellant and the official Liquidator.
They would remit the balance amount, if any, to the Official Liquidator.
He directed that the sale proceeds be deposited with the Official Liquidator.
It would be just and proper to permit the sale of the said vessel.
The appellant, therefore, prayed, inter alia, that it be permitted to recover its charges from the sale proceeds of the said vessel and claimed that the appellant had a right superior to that of others, in respect of the said vessel.
In the meanwhile, the official Liquidator directed the appellant to maintain status quo in respect of the said vessel and further directed that if the vessel was proposed to be sold, leave of the High Court under Section 446 of the Companies Act should be taken.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in respect of an order passed by the Patna High Court in Company Petition No.5 of 1990 for winding up M S Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. A vessel belonging to M s Thakur Shipping company Ltd. M.V. Varuna Kachhapi arrived at the Port of Mumbai in May 1995 and was laid up at anchorage.
The charges, however, were number paid by M s. Thakur shipping Co. Ltd. Thereafter, further attempts were made by the appellant to sell the vessel which were again held up on account of the litigation initiated at the instance of M s. Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. While the said ship remained under arrest by the appellant, in 1990 a Company Petition No.5 of 1990 was filed by the 1st respondent, petitioning creditor, in the Patna High Court against M s. Thakur shipping Co.Ltd. In the companypany petition, official Liquidator was appointed.
In appeal, however, as M S. Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. undertook to pay all the charges due and payable to the appellant, the auction was stayed.
Thereafter, the appellant made an application for modification of the order of 16th of August, 1996, praying that the appellant alone be allowed to sell the vessel to sell the vessel and retain the sale proceeds towards its dues.
This was the purport of the application though it was number clearly so worded.
The High Court has passed the impugned order of 26th of November, 1996 disallowing such modification.
By an order dated 16th of August, 1996, a learned single judge of the Patna High Court held that an order had already been passed to permit the sale of the said vessel.
On 11th of April, 1996, the appellant made an application in the Patna High Court in the said companypany petition setting out that up to 30.6.1995, Port Trust charges amounting to Rs.1,2071,307 had become due and payable and the amount companytinued to grow at the rate of Rs.9,003 per day.
