AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed by the Official Liquidator u/s 454 (5) and (5A) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 132 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
It is alleged in the said application that the respondents were former Directors of M/s.Padmavathy Panel Boards Limited [in liquidation] and that they have not filed the affairs of the Company within 21 days from the date of winding up order and therefore they have committed an offence u/s 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.
In response to the notice issued from this Court, Respondents No.1 & 3 have appeared, whereas the case against Respondent No.2 was dismissed vide order dated 17.7.2009 in CA 656/2008 and subsequently, Respondent No.4 was discharged by order dated 3.9.2009 of this Court passed in CA 3/2009. Thereafter, this Court has framed charge against Respondents No.1 and 3 on 3.6.2010 and the respondents have pleaded not guilty of the charge named against them. The petitioner has examined PW.1-M. Ramamurthy. He has reiterated in the chief examination, the allegation made in the petition. In the cross-examination, he has stated as follows:-
It is true after list of document as per exhibit R4 our office have not made out further defect and clarification. Witness voluntarily stated scrutinized and if any defect found out, we will issue notice. It is true in the prayer of the company application is sought for action for not filing of statement of affair.
Further, cross examination was deferred and witness was again summoned on 13.7.2010. In the further cross-examination, he has stated as follows:-
In response to exhibit R1 the respondents have given reply and document by way of exhibit R2, R3 and R4. We have not asked further document to respondent there after. Now see letter written by respondent R1 and R3 to our official liquidator dated 13.11.2006, which bears the signature the witness admits both this letter marked as exhibit R5 and R6.
In view of the above evidence on record, it is seen that the respondents have filed the Statement after seeking condonation of delay in filing the Statement and that the delay has been condoned. In view of the above facts since the Respondents have rectified the defect as sought by the Official Liquidator and as evidenced from the cross-examination of PW.1, the respondents have complied with the provisions of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, hence this application does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this Company Application is dismissed.