JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, C.J.
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against order dated 22.2.2007 of the learned Company Judge passed in Company Petition No. 136 of 2005.
2. The appellant, who was the guarantor, satisfied the debts of the company in liquidation and the learned Company Judge observed that he has stepped into the shoes of the secured creditors and in this view of the matter, the Official Liquidator was to satisfy the debts due to him.
3. The property of the company in liquidation having been put up for sale, the Official Liquidator tried to palm off the same for a meagre amount of Rs. 5 lacs as against the bid of Rs. 35 lac made by the appellant, who in order to establish his bona fides, also deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lacs.
4. While making a comment on the bid made by one Dilbag Singh (arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the Company Petition and as proforma respondent in this appeal) and specifically in view of the offer made by the appellant, the Official Liquidator to sell the property of the company in liquidation in accordance with law and the amount of Rs. 10 lacs deposited by the appellant in terms of order dated 23.2.2006 was directed to be returned to him, but after deducting expenses on account of advertisement and valuer’s fee amounting to Rs. 90.646/- and Rs. 16,080/- respectively.
5. The appellant is aggrieved with the aforementioned deductions and is satisfied with the rest of the order.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the deduction of Rs. 90,646/- on account of the expenses of advertisement were highly exorbitant and the conduct of the Official Liquidator is not above board as he had deputed a firm of Kanpur to carry out a publication in Chandigarh which is suggestive of the fact that the exercise undertaken by him was not bona fide.
7. Shri Puneet Kansal, learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator could not satisfactorily explain the conduct of the Official liquidator in raising an amount of Rs. 90,646/- on account of advertisement charges which did not conform to the accepted and plausible modes of calculation. He has also not been able to explain as to why a firm of Kanpur was roped in to carry out the publication in newspapers at Chandigarh when the exercise could easily have been undertaken in Chandigarh itself.
8. We have also been informed that the said Official Liquidator was in the scrutiny of the Central Bureau of Investigation and was facing serious charges of corruption.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid, we set aside the deduction as directed by the learned Company Judge amounting to Rs 90,646/- on account of publication/advertisement charges as being arbitrary.
10. However, the amount of Rs. 16,080/- which was also directed to be deducted on account of valuer’s fee shall stand and it shall also cover the publication/advertisement expenses.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is accepted.