HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1025 of 2026 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 3 August 2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Misc. Application No. 6 of 2022, whereby the application made by the appellant seeking refund of Rs. 7,27,000/- has been rejected. 2. The application was filed seeking direction from the Company Court to direct the Official Liquidator ('O.L.') to refund a sum of Rs. 7,27,000/- along with interest with effect from 20 November 2005 till the actual payment was made. 3. Submissions were made that the company Arya Hotels Limited in liquidation was wound up by order dated 03.09.2002. On 03.09.2005, the O.L. took charge of the assets of the company in liquidation and put the same to public auction, wherein the appellant along with one Kapil Kumar submitted a joint bid and being the highest bidder, their bid was accepted. The amount of Rs. 10,35,000/- was deposited by way of 9 demand drafts and Rs. 2,000/- was deposited in cash as earnest money. 4. Ultimately, the sale of the property was confirmed in favour of one Manoj Kumar Goel who had offered and raised the bid amount. The amount deposited as earnest money by the appellant along with Kapil Kumar was returned by the O.L. through cheque dated 07.08.2008 issued jointly in their name. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Roshni Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rishabh Agarwal Vinesh Kumar Sanghal .....Appellant(s) Official Liquidator, Uttar Pradesh, attached to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad .....Respondent(s) 5. The appellant approached the O.L. with a request to issue separate cheques in the name of appellant and the said Kapil Kumar, however, the same was not accepted on account of the policy being followed by the O.L. 6. Whereafter, the present application was filed seeking refund of the earnest money paid in part by the appellant with the submissions that whereabouts of other co-bidder Kapil Kumar was not known. 7. The application was contested by the O.L. based on the principle being followed for refund of the amount. 8. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was nothing on record to indicate that said Kapil Kumar had no objection in refunding the money separately to the appellant and therefore, he was not entitled to the relief and consequently, rejected the application. 9. Counsel for the appellant, with reference to the receipt issued by the O.L. of the demand drafts in question as well as the certificate issued by the bank, made submissions that out of the 9 demand drafts, 7 demand drafts were got issued by the appellant, 3 from his own bank account and 4 from the bank account of his brother Mr. I.C. Sanghal and as separate demand drafts were deposited, the fact that the amount belonged to the appellant was clearly evident and therefore, the learned Company Judge was not justified in refusing the said relief. 10. Further submissions have been made that the appellant is prepared to produce indemnity bond in case, at any point of time, any claim is made qua the said amount to be paid to the appellant. 11. Counsel for the respondent made submissions that the policy of the O.L. Office in this regard is clear, however, in case any order is passed by the Court, the respondent would abide by the same. 12. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 13. It is not in dispute that a joint bid was made by the appellant along with one Kapil Kumar. If the amount had been deposited by one SPLA No. 1025 of 2026 2 draft/cheque, the position would have been different, however, admittedly, 9 demand drafts were produced and the certificate, which has been issued by the bank, clearly indicates that 7 drafts were purchased by the appellant from the bank and the said fact clearly indicates that out of the amount of Rs. 10,37,000/-, a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- was deposited by the appellant and in those circumstances, there appears to be no reason to deny the appellant the refund of the said amount. 14. Insofar as the cash of Rs. 2,000/- sought to be refunded to the appellant is concerned, the said amount cannot be ordered to be refunded. 15. So far as the claim of interest by the appellant is concerned, admittedly, the cheque was issued by the O.L. in time way back in the year 2008 and the claim thereafter, after 14 years, has been raised before the Court and therefore, the claim of interest is not justified. 16. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 3 August 2026 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. 17. The application filed by the appellant being Misc. Application No. 6 of 2022 is allowed, on the appellant filing an indemnity bond for the said amount indicating that in case any dispute is raised/demand is made from the O.L. qua the said amount of Rs. 7,25,000/-, the appellant would refund the same, a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- be refunded to the appellant by the O.L. in his individual name within a period of four weeks. September 9, 2026 AHA/Anil SPLA No. 1025 of 2026 3 (Arun Kumar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad