IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   CO.PET. 70/1995  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 V.J. EQUIPMENT LTD.     ..... Petitioner 
 . 
 Through: None. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 M/S VIVEK HATCHERIES P. LTD.   ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl, Advocate for OL. 
 . 
 Mr. Sandeep Garg, Advocate for D.M., Hapur and Tehsildar, Dhaulana. 
 . 
 Mr. Ajit Singh Bidhuri, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Choudhary R-3. 
 . 
 Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for Vikram Krishana. 
 . 
 Ms. Malaviva Lal, Advocate for R-1 in C.A. 559/2007. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON?BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
    19.09.2013 
 . 
 The learned counsel for the respondent-company states that the 
 aggregate amount due to the six petitioners who have filed petitions for 
 winding-up of the respondent-company has been deposited in this Court by 
 DD No.003965 for `10,07,435.23 dated 16.09.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, 
 Connaught Place.  The amount shall be placed in FD initially for a period 
 of 3 months, to be renewed every 3 months till final orders are passed on 
 the petition. 
 . 
 REPORT No.683/2013 
 . 
 This report filed by the OL shows that the payment for the security 
 . 
 services for safeguarding the property and the expenses of the OL have to be paid before the company is permitted to be revived.  The learned 
 counsel for the respondent company, however, states that the security 
 agency did not at all place any guard for securing the property during 
 the years 2002-2012 and, therefore, the question of paying them does not 
 arise.  He, however, says that so far as the amount of `13,02,095/- is 
 concerned, there being a bill of the security agency, it is not disputed. 
 . 
 A meeting between the OL and the security agencies has been 
 directed to take place on 21.09.2013.  The learned counsel for the 
 respondent company is directed to participate in the said meeting and put 
 forth all his objections to the security agencies.  The committee 
 appointed for settling the claims of the security agencies will 
 thereafter examine the matter and take a decision.  In case, the decision 
 is not acceptable to the respondent company the proceedings before this 
 Court shall continue.  A copy of the report No.683/2013 shall be given to 
 the learned counsel for the respondent-company as well as the learned 
 counsel for the respondent No.1 in Company Application No.559/2007. 
 . 
 A fresh report shall be filed by the OL before the next date of 
 hearing. 
 . 
 Renotify on 18.12.2013. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 
 . 
 hs 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 3 
 .