AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, J.—This application is filed u/s 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with rule 260 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 against the sole respondent with a prayer to direct the respondent to make good the loss suffered by the company-in-liquidation in a sum of Rs. 1,56,62,363. The details of the alleged misfeasance is enumerated in paras 8(a) to 10(a) to (c) of the application.
Heard the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator and the learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the records.
This application was initially filed on 5-7-2010 against the respondent for a direction to make good a sum of Rs. 1,68,750. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by Official Liquidator in CA No. 756/2010 seeking for amendment of the application. Same came to be allowed by this court by order dated 22-9-2010. In the amended application, the Official Liquidator sought for a direction against the respondent to make good the loss suffered by the company in liquidation in a sum of Rs. 1,56,52,363 as referred to supra.
This court, on a report filed by the Official Liquidator in OLR No. 260/2009, an order dated 7-4-2010 came to be passed appointing M/s. Raghavendra Rao and Associates, Chartered Accountants to examine the accounts of the Company (in liquidation) and to file a report and same was filed. It came to be enclosed along with CA:756/2010.
It is the contention of Official Liquidator that as per para 7 at page 10 of the report, the Chartered Accountant has opined as under:
However, Sri K.S. Reddy was expired on 5-12-2009 now Sri N.S. Shashikumar is the only Director who is liable to reimburse the following amount to the Microfert Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., in liquidation.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent would contend that for the alleged period of misfeasance, the respondent was not a director of the company-in-liquidation. In support of his submission, he would draw the attention of the court to the very same auditor''s report relied upon by Official Liquidator at page 3, para 7, wherein it is stated that present respondent was appointed as a Director with effect from 2-9-2004. The Official Liquidator in the present application has alleged the act of misfeasance against the respondent relates to the period 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2004. At para 10(a) of the application, it is stated by the Official Liquidator that ex-directors informed the office of Official Liquidator that entire amount has been spent by them for running the company after 31-3-1999 up to 31-3-2004. It is also stated at para 10(b) of the application that no supporting vouchers for the amounts spent from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2004 has been produced before Official Liquidator for verification. These pleadings put forth by the Official Liquidator would clearly go to show that alleged misfeasance by ex-directors of the Company (in liquidation) relates to the period from 31-3-1999/1-4-1999 to 31-3-2004 as stated by the auditor himself in his report dated 7-6-2010. Admittedly respondent herein was appointed as a director of the Company (in liquidation) with effect from 2-9-2004 and the period to which the alleged misfeasance is said to have committed by the ex-directors relates to earlier period i.e., prior to 2-9-2004 (31-3-1999 to 31-3-2004). Hence, there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, it stands dismissed.