{"id":43401,"date":"2000-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000"},"modified":"2018-04-03T14:36:13","modified_gmt":"2018-04-03T09:06:13","slug":"ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Phukan.J.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 3439  of  1997\nAppeal (civil)\t3440\t of  1997\n\n\n\n$\nA.  P.\tSTATE FINANCIAL CONWRATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.J<br \/>\n      JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>      PHUKAN.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellant is a Corporation established under The State<br \/>\n&#8216;\u00ab   Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short &#8216;Act of 1951&#8242;).<br \/>\nTwo  companies\tviz.  M\/S Nagarjuna Paper Mills and  M\/S  Chandra<br \/>\nPharmaceuticals\t Limited were in liquidation and the  liquidation<br \/>\nproceedings were pending before the, learned company Judge of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court.   The  above two companies obtained loans\tfrom  the<br \/>\nappellant  and for realisation of dues, the appellant invoked the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 29 of Act of 1951.  As both the companies<\/p>\n<p>      were  under  liquidation, the appellant tiled two\t separate<br \/>\napplications  under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act read with<br \/>\nSections 29 and 46 of Act of 1951 before learned company Judge of<br \/>\nthe  High  Court for staying outside the liquidation  proceeding.<br \/>\nThe  learned  Judge passed two similar orders in respect of  both<br \/>\nthe  companies\tand granted permission to the appellant\t to  stay<br \/>\noutside\t the  liquidation  proceedings subject to  the\tfollowing<br \/>\nconditions:   &#8220;1.  The petitioner will undertake to discharge its<br \/>\nliability&#8217;  due to the workers, if any, under Section 529 (A)  of<br \/>\nthe Companies Act.  2.\tThe.  petitioner shall inform at least 10<br \/>\ndays  in  advance before a date fixed for receipt of tenders,  to<br \/>\nthe Official Liquidator about the proposed sale of the properties<br \/>\nof  the\t company;  and 3.  The petitioner shall also  obtain  the<br \/>\npermission  of\tthe  Court before finalising  the  tenders.&#8221;  The<br \/>\nappeals\t filed\twere dismissed by the Division Bench of the  High<br \/>\nCourt by the impugned judgement and hence these appeals.  We have<br \/>\nheard Mr.  Y.  Prabhakara Rao.\tlearned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nand Mr.\t A.D.N.\t Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  short  question  to\tbe decided in  these  appeals  is<br \/>\nwhether\t the  order  of the High Court imposing the  above  three<br \/>\nconditions is lawful.  To appreciate the above point we may quote<br \/>\nbelow\tsub-section   (1)   of\tSection\t 29  of\t  Act\tof   1951<br \/>\nand-sub-Section\t (1)  of  Section  529 and Section  529A  of  the<br \/>\nCompanies  Act.\t It maybe stated that the proviso to  sub-Section<br \/>\n(1)  of\t Section  529  and  Section 529A  were\tinserted  by  the<br \/>\nCompanies  (Amendment) Act, 1985.  &#8220;29 (1)- Where any  industrial<br \/>\nconcern,  which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation<br \/>\nunder an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or<br \/>\nadvance\t or any instalment thereof or in meeting its  obligations<br \/>\nin  relation  to  any  guarantee  given\t by  the  Corporation  or<br \/>\notherwise  fails  to comply with the terms of its agreement  with<br \/>\nthe  Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall  have<br \/>\nthe right to take over the management or possession or both ofthe<br \/>\nindustrial  concerns, as well as the right to transfer by way  of<br \/>\nlease  or  sale\t and  realise the  property  pledged,  mortgaged.<br \/>\nhypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;529  (1) &#8211; In the winding up of an insolvent company,  the<br \/>\nsame rules shall prevail and be observed with regard to-(a) debts<br \/>\nprovable;    (b)the  valuation\tof   annuities\tand  future   and<br \/>\ncontingent  liabilities;  and (c)the respective rights of secured<br \/>\nand  unsecured\tcreditors;   as are in force for the  time  being<br \/>\nunder  the  law\t of  insolvency with respect to\t the  estates  of<br \/>\npersons\t adjudged  insolvent;\tProvided that  the  security&#8217;  of<br \/>\nevery&#8217;\tsecured\t creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a  pan<br \/>\npassu  charge  in  favour  of the workmen to the  extent  of  the<br \/>\nworkmen&#8217;s  portion  therein,  and,  where  a  secured  creditor;.<br \/>\nInstead\t of relinquishing his security and proving his debt, opts<br \/>\nto  realise his security- (a) the liquidator shall be entitled to<br \/>\nrepresent  the\tworkmen\t and enforce such  charge  (b)any  amount<br \/>\nrealised  by the liquidator by way of enforcement of such  charge<br \/>\nshall  be  applied rateably for the discharge of workmen&#8217;s  dues;<br \/>\nand (c) so much of the debt due to such secured creditor as could<br \/>\nnot  be realised by him by virtue of the foregoing provisions  of<br \/>\nthis  proviso  or  the\tamount of the workmen&#8217;s\t portion  in  his<br \/>\nsecurity,  whichever  is  less, shall rank.  pan passu\twith  the<br \/>\nworkmen\t dues  for  the purposes of section 529A.&#8221;  &#8220;529A  (1)\t&#8211;<br \/>\nNotwithstanding\t anything  contained in any of this provision  of<br \/>\nthis  Act  or any other law for the time being in force.  in  the<br \/>\nwinding up of a company-\n<\/p>\n<p>      (a) workmen&#8217;s dues;  and (b) debts due to secured creditors<br \/>\nto  the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to<br \/>\nsub-section  ( I ) of Section 529 pan passu with such dues, shall<br \/>\nbe  paid  in priority to all other debts&#8221; The only contention  of<br \/>\nMr.   Y.   Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant  was<br \/>\nthat  the  Act\tof  1951  being\t a  special  Act,  power  of  the<br \/>\nappellant-corporation  to invoke provisions of Section 29 of  the<br \/>\nof  1951 is absolute and cannot be restricted.\tBy inserting  the<br \/>\nproviso\t of Section 529 of the Companies Act by the amending  Act<br \/>\nof  1985  legislature  has provided that the  security\tof  every<br \/>\nsecured\t creditor  shall be deemed to be subject to a  pan  pasfu<br \/>\ncharge\tin  favour of the workmen to the extent of the\tworkmen&#8217;s<br \/>\nportion\t therein.   and,  where a secured creditor;   instead  of<br \/>\nrelinquishing  the  security and proving thedebt,opts to  realise<br \/>\nsecurity-  (a) the liquidator shall be entitled to represent  the<br \/>\nworkmen and enforce such charge;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (b)   any\t amount\t realised  by\tthe  liquidator\t by   way<br \/>\nofe-nforcement\tof such charge;\t and (c) so much of the debt  due<br \/>\nto  such  secured  creditor as could not be realised  by  him  by<br \/>\nvirtue\tof the foregoing provisions of the proviso or the  amount<br \/>\nof  the\t workmen&#8217;s  portion in the security, whichever\tis  less.<br \/>\nshall  rank  pan passu with the workmen dues tor the purposes  of<br \/>\nsection\t 529A.\t Section  5^9 A which was also\tinserted  by  the<br \/>\namending  Act  of 1985 starts with the non obstcalte  clause  and<br \/>\nprovides  that\tin winding up of a Company, &#8216;workmen&#8217;s&#8217; dues  and<br \/>\ndebts  due to secured creditors to the extent of such debts  rank<br \/>\nunder clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 529<br \/>\npari  passu  with  such dues shall be paid in priority\twith  all<br \/>\nother dues.  Now the question is whether Section 29 of the Act of<br \/>\n1951 can over ride above provisions of the proviso to sub-section<br \/>\n(1)  of\t Section 529 and Section 529 A of the Companies Act.   in<br \/>\nother words whether the Corporation can exercise its rights under<br \/>\nabove Section 29 ignoring a pari passu charge of the workmen.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Act\tof 1951 is a special Act for grant  of\tfinancial<br \/>\nassistance  tQ\tindustrial  concerns  with a  view  to\tboost  up<br \/>\nindustrialisation  and also recovery of such financial assistance<br \/>\nif  it\tbecomes\t bad and similarly the Companies Act  deals  with<br \/>\ncompanies  including winding up of such companies.  Both  Section<br \/>\n29  of\tAct of 1951 and Section 529 A of the Companies\tAct  have<br \/>\ncompeting   mm\tobsicmte  provisions  but   the\t proviso   to\t.<br \/>\nsub-section  (1)  of  529 and Section 529 A  being  a  subsequent<br \/>\nenactment,  the\t non obstante.\tclause in Section 529 A\t prevails<br \/>\nover  the non obstante.\t clause found in Section 29 of the Act of<br \/>\n1951  in view of the settled position of law.  We are, therefore,<br \/>\nof  the\t opinion  that the above proviso to  sub-section  (1)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 529 and Section 529 A will control Section 29 of the Act<br \/>\nof  1951.   In\tother  words the statutory&#8217;  right  to\tsell  the<br \/>\nproperty  under\t Section  29  of the..\tAct of\t1951  has  to  be<br \/>\nexercised  with\t the  rights ofparipasstt charge to  the  workmen<br \/>\ncreated\t by  the  proviso to Section 529 of the\t Companies  ,Act.<br \/>\nUnder  the  proviso  to\t sub-section  (1)  of  Section\t529,  the<br \/>\nliquidator  shall be entitled to represent the workmen and  force<br \/>\nthe  above  pan passn charge.  Therefore, the Company  Court  was<br \/>\nfully  justified  in  imposing abbove fconditions to  enable  the<br \/>\nOfficial Liquidator to discharge bis funnction<\/p>\n<p>      -properly under supervision of the Company Court as the new<br \/>\nSection 529 A of the Companies Act confers upon a Company Court a<br \/>\nduty  to  ensure that the workmen&#8217;s dues are paid in priority  to<br \/>\nall  other  debts  in  accordance with provisions  of  the  above<br \/>\nSection.   Tlie legislature has amended the Companies Act in 1985<br \/>\nwith  a social purpose viz.  to protect dues of the workmen.   If<br \/>\nconditions  are\t not imposed to protect the right of the  workmen<br \/>\nthere  is  every possibility that secured creditor may\tfrustrate<br \/>\nthe  above  pan\t passu\tright of the workmen.\tIn  the\t impugned<br \/>\njudgment  High\tCourt expressed tlie views as follows;\t &#8220;In  our<br \/>\nopinion, therefore, it was not at all necessary for the Financial<br \/>\nCorporation to approach this Court for permission to stay outside<br \/>\nthe  winding up proceedings.  In spite of the same, the Financial<br \/>\nCorporation  did venture to make such application in view of  the<br \/>\nfact  that  &#8216; pan pasyu charge was created on the assets  of  the<br \/>\ncompany\t  for\tpayment\t  of   arrears\t  to   workmen\t of   the<br \/>\ncompany&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;  In view of the above opinion of the High Court<br \/>\nthat  it was not necessary for Financial Corporation to\t approach<br \/>\nthe  Court  for\t permission  to\t  stay\touteiJe\t the  winding  up<br \/>\nproceedings, the learned counsel for appellant has urged that<\/p>\n<p>      High-Court-erredd in imposing the above conditions.  We are<br \/>\nof  the\t opinion  that- above-ebservation of the High  Court  was<br \/>\nuncalled for as we have stated that power under Section 29 of the<br \/>\nAct  of 1951 can be exerci.sed subject to the above provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Companies Act.  For what has been slated above, we hold that<br \/>\nimposition of the above conditions by the High Court &#8216;was lawful,<br \/>\nThe  present  appeals  have no merit and  accordingly  dismissed.<br \/>\nCost on the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 Author: Phukan.J. Bench: S.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3439 of 1997 Appeal (civil) 3440 of 1997 $ A. P. STATE FINANCIAL CONWRATION Vs. RESPONDENT: OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/08\/2000 BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Phukan JUDGMENT: L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.J JUDGMENT PHUKAN.J. The appellant [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1556,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000"},"wordCount":1556,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000","name":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T09:06:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ofact-4-of-1996-vs-official-liquidator-on-9-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ofact 4 Of 1996 vs Official Liquidator on 9 August, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}