Court overturns refund order, citing lack of notice. Emphasizes natural justice and awards costs.

The High Court set aside the order directing the appellant to refund an amount to the official liquidator with interest, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Court found that the re-examination of the claim without notice violated principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Court awarded costs to the appellant for the harassment faced during the legal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of due process in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order directing refund to official liquidator with interest.
2. Interpretation of interest rates under fixed deposit and hire purchase schemes.
3. Official liquidator's awareness of appellant's claim.
4. Scrutiny and approval of appellant's claim by official liquidator and Company Court.
5. Re-examination of appellant's claim without notice.
6. Disbursement of excess amount and subsequent demand for refund.
7. Jurisdiction of Company Court and official liquidator for re-verification of claims.
8. Calculation and payment of interest on appellant's claim.
9. Finality of previous order directing disbursement.
10. Harassment faced by appellant and costs awarded.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged an order directing her to refund an amount to the official liquidator with interest. The appellant and her husband had made investments in fixed deposit and hire purchase schemes. The interest rates under these schemes were disputed, with the appellant claiming entitlement to higher rates based on the agreements with the company.

2. The official liquidator was aware of the appellant's claim, which was submitted in accordance with the rules. The claim was scrutinized and approved by the official liquidator and the Company Court, leading to the disbursement of a certain amount to the appellant.

3. However, a re-examination of the claim was conducted without notice to the appellant, resulting in a demand for refund of an excess amount. The appellant contested this re-verification, arguing that it was done behind her back and violated principles of natural justice.

4. The appellant also raised objections regarding the calculation of interest and the jurisdiction of the Company Court and official liquidator for re-verifying claims that had already been finalized and disbursed. The objections were rejected by the lower court, leading to the appellant's appeal.

5. The High Court found merit in the appellant's contentions, setting aside the order directing refund and awarding costs to the appellant due to the harassment faced during the legal proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in such matters.

---