4 When the possession of this very property was sought by the Official Liquidator in pursuance of the winding up order, ex-directors of the company (in liquidation) and a purported lessee thereof objected to the same. The learned Company Judge hearing the Liquidator's Report found the lessee and the company (in liquidation) to be related parties. Brushing aside all their submissions, the learned Judge directed the lessee and the exdirectors to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the Liquidator. The matter was then carried in appeal before a Division Bench of this court. That appeal, namely, Appeal (Lodging) No.688/2014, was disposed of by the Division Bench by its order dated 31 March 2015. The attack on the impugned order before the Division Bench was based on the very issue of maintainability of the winding up petition. The very decision, which is relied on in the present company application, namely, the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak1 , was cited before the Division Bench and it was submitted that the order under which the company had been wound up was void ab initio and therefore, could be challenged in any proceedings including the proceedings before the Division Bench. The submission that the secured creditors having pursued their remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the winding up petition was not maintainable, was advanced before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, referring to the order of the learned Single Judge referred to above, and also the order of the learned Single Judge hearing the Official Liquidator's report thereafter, from which the Appellant director had come in appeal before the Division Bench, held that the objection to the maintainability of the winding up petition was already overruled and that those orders had attained finality. The Division Bench order was then carried before the Supreme Court by the Applicant ex-director in a Special Leave Petition. The SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
