Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)K.Subramony vs The Official Liquidator on 2 January, 2009
15 In this context, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner reported as K. Subromani (Supra) and Mother Care
(India) Ltd. (Supra) would be inapplicable. While the later judgment has
not dealt with the provisions of Section 454 (2)(a) of the said Act
Co. A. No.2137/2010 Page 9 of 16
{which by itself is a provision independent of the other clauses i.e.
clause 454 (2) (b)(c) & (d)}, the former judgment has returned a finding
largely based upon the immunity granted to a nominee director under
Section 27 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as SFC Act); as noted earlier the Companies Act has made no
such distinction in this legislation i.e. no distinction has been drawn
between a nominated director or any other director.
16 Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the applicant should be absolved as she was only a nominee director of
the company is not ipso facto by itself a ground to discharge the
applicant of all liability.
Technical Consultancy House Private ... vs Kuldip Raj Narang And Others on 12 December, 1989
7 Submissions have been countered by the learned counsel for the
respondent; attention has been drawn to the language of Section 454 of
the said Act and particular emphasis has been laid on Section 454 (2) (a)
of the said Act; arguments have been predicated on the submission that
all persons who have been officers of the company at any point of time
Co. A. No.2137/2010 Page 5 of 16
are liable to file their statement of affairs and even otherwise the said
Act having made no distinction between a working director and a non-
working director, technical director and a nominee director, all
persons/officers who were at any stage working in the company are
liable for prosecution under the aforestated provision of law.
8 Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator has relied upon a
judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as (1989) Com. Cases Vol.
66 410 Technical Consultancy House Private Ltd. Vs. Kuldip Raj
Narang and Others as also another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High
Court reported as 1994 Crl.
The Official Liquidator, High Court Of ... vs Koganti Krishna Kumar on 5 October, 1993
18 There is no dispute to the proposition that an "officer" includes a
director as per the definition contained in Section 2 (30) of the said Act.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent are largely
based upon the judgment of Koganti Krishna Kumar (Supra).
Devindar Kishore Mehra vs Official Liquidator And Ors. on 9 May, 1979
In
Devender Kishore Mehra (Supra) the directors of the company had
resigned long ago before the winding up order; it was in this context that
the Division Bench had noted that it could not be envisaged that in such
a situation nobody can be called upon to file the statement of affairs and
as such all Ex-directors of the company who had resigned even more
than one year before the winding up order had been directed to file the
Co. A. No.2137/2010 Page 11 of 16
statement of affairs. However the subsequent argument of the applicant
that he should be discharged as he has no knowledge of the affairs of the
company had answered by the Division Bench in the following words:-
Official Liquidator Of R.S. Motors (P) ... vs Jagjit Singh Sawhney And Anr. on 25 September, 1973
19 In Jagjit Singh Sawhney (Supra), a Bench of this Court had noted
that where the books of the company are not available to the director
who is required to file the statement of affairs, it would be a reasonable
excuse for him in not submitting the statement of affairs of the company
Co. A. No.2137/2010 Page 12 of 16
ordered to be wound up. In this context, it had noted inter-alia as
follows:-
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 633 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mother Care (India) Ltd. vs Prof. Ramaswamy P. Aiyar on 15 October, 2003
15 In this context, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner reported as K. Subromani (Supra) and Mother Care
(India) Ltd. (Supra) would be inapplicable. While the later judgment has
not dealt with the provisions of Section 454 (2)(a) of the said Act
Co. A. No.2137/2010 Page 9 of 16
{which by itself is a provision independent of the other clauses i.e.
clause 454 (2) (b)(c) & (d)}, the former judgment has returned a finding
largely based upon the immunity granted to a nominee director under
Section 27 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as SFC Act); as noted earlier the Companies Act has made no
such distinction in this legislation i.e. no distinction has been drawn
between a nominated director or any other director.
16 Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the applicant should be absolved as she was only a nominee director of
the company is not ipso facto by itself a ground to discharge the
applicant of all liability.