IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAF;AQ"BH.13}.(;§ALDREV_V " "
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY' oE'DE<:é*;eM'EER,'"?;CQ9i:_j
THE HONBLE MR. JLTEHCE H_;.z»4ANJLTNATH
THE HoN'EL,E,;v1R. ARAVTND
o.s..wo.25
CQMEANY Vzw.' 181 1/2003
'H<ip}éEff1T1_e'1%g§jo,66/ 1996
BETW.¥.rE.Ei§ V. ' l g V
1. MT. PraV'eer1VChan_de1f Chugh,
'S/'0. Late S.hv:"1.'i\.I_. 'C."Chugh,
Aged about years,
- , N0."778;v15""Crdss, I Phase,
1I.P.Naga.r,V Bangalore.
Chugh,
. Shri. N.C.ChU.gh,
A_ged'~ai50ut 55 years,
_N0;[778, 15"] Cross, I Phase,
J. P'.'Nagar, Bangalore.
: Appellants
{By Sr1.Ad1tya Sondhl, Advocate)
AND:
The Official Liquidator, A. '
Of M / s. Sarnrat Ashoka Exports Ltd.;I_
{Company in Liquidation) '
Attached to Hon'b1e
High Court of Karnataka,
IV Floor, D 8: F Wing;-. - _ --
Kendriya Sadan, Korar'n.angaIa.,. V" ~
Banga1ore--560 034. C - ' __ _
vi L : Respondent
[By Sr1.V.Ja.yaa:art1, A:dvo.;c:-ate} V.
This Appeal' is 't'*i_i1ed"'h under Section 483 of the
Compan_ies*Act,"11956, R./W Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act,tA1V,V3agains«t__the Order dated 21.08.2008 passed
in CA No.' 1811,/:'0.3*in Cap No. 66/ 1996
Tiziésdtixppdeai 'eo"1n:ing on for orders, this day, ARAVIND
J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
88 before the Company Court have filed
ovri,5g’in_ai: side appeal questioning the legality of order
date*dL1.21.08.2008 passed in Company Application
A 5]’ _Nio’:_1811/2003 in Company Petition 66/1996. The appellants
ddgwho were the Ex–Directors of the Company in liquidation
filed their statements of affairs on 13-10-2008 which ought
–
to have been filed within 21 days froni 18′–.V1′;2’El?.’)2landfbezfree’ .
there was a delay in filing the Stat:e’n1ent’li’of
condoning the said delay’-.__Co1r1’parly_ N0}?
I811/2003 came to be filed Clionipanyiicourt. The
learned Company :ptl’:i..atv«.tl;ie”applicants have not
sought for extension oftiinie (3) of Section
454 of the: Rule 128 of the
tfifficial Liquidator and only
on sought for condonation of
delay so, the application before the
Company to be dismissed. on the ground that
‘ tIf1eap1%–ovis’ions of llaiiv as referred to Supra were not invoked
2v…lWe’lll1aVe heard Sri.Aditya Sondhi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri.V.Jayaram, learned
“:1? standing counsel appearing for Official Liquidator.
fir
3. During the course of arguments.’ It”i’s.:l:_;roi;1.gi’it to the
notice of this Court that under stiniliarf’circums’tlancese co–
ordinate Bench of this Court-.i_n
dated 15.10.2008 had .thel’de1’ay:Vfbyilrlolding that
procedure envisagedi-..u:I1dAerfifRule i’1._f2′:v$*>””of_ppthe Company Court
Rules would not case and also on
the l_’Vstat.en§1_ent ‘of::avf’fai1’sVV’filed by the applicants
therein not affect the interest
of _c_relditors and accordingly allowed
the appeal. 0 V .0
,4. iperusval of the records as also order of the
we find that the facts in the present case
‘«”are nature as found in OSA No.21/2008 and
“fol103;Vi’11g:*”judgement dated 15.10.2008 passed in OSA
it pypNo:iZ.1;/2008, we allow this appeal set aside the order of the
V”-leuarrled Company Judge dated 21-8-2008 passed in
Company Application No.181l/2003, in Company Petition
*$–/’
sbb/;;.
No. 66/1996. Accordingly, we allow C0ri1p:ajn3:z’ttlpplicatizarr3
No. 1811/2003 filed by the afzpellafitksbefc1fe”-the:’C_empany*~_ .1
Judge. In that View of the._Qrder..th’e Offici’ajl .6:LvlTqu’_l;dator:V:is
directed to entertain the bf datlaireivfgfiled by the
appellants herein.’ that if the
Official Liqutdator defects in the
statement;_”ot be rectified by the
appellaftte lmmediately on pointing
SQ;/…
JUDGE