Haryana State has been sold of. That property
constitutes the security of the petitioner which is a
Corporation registered under the State Financial
Corporation Act. The claim is that the petitioner is
the first charge holder and that the mortgage in its
favour has been duly registered. Once the fact that the
company is wound up was brought to its notice, the
petitioner preferred this claim which was directed to be
adjudicated by the liquidator. The liquidator passed
the initial order which came to be set aside by this
Court on 14th February, 2003. Thereafter, a
re-adjudication took place and the grievance was that
the re-adjudication decided the same quantum as was
determined by the earlier order. In such circumstances,
even the re-adjudication proceedings were challenged and
this time an order was passed on 13th April, 2006 once
again granting liberty to the petitioner-applicant to
raise its claim. Although the petitioner-applicant
could urge that its claim with interest is in the
vicinity of Rs.5.72 crores approximately, ultimately, it
stated that it would abide by the adjudication done in
accordance with law. However, its only contention was
that Rule 156 read in its entirety would clearly point
out that once there is an agreement reached between the
parties with regard to rate of interest, then, that rate
of interest would govern the adjudication. To such a
case, Rule 156 and 179 would have no application.
