IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF NOVEMBER.,"
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE mix, 1\'AC§AMo14iAN'S
BETWEEN:
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR _ __
M/SEIDAR SPECIAL ALLOYS '
STEEL (P) L1MITE11~._(_E\I LIV E}ID.k.'xTI()1\ i)_ "
ATTACHED TQ.HI<;E-Co":;R1j ..
OF KARNAT_AKA3 _rf1,0Q_R__ _ .
'D & F' KE1\t:)RIE_A
K0RAA,VLA1€GA:§A:, EA%§G.A L<jRE:56b'b34.
(By SR1 " ~
AND; ' ~ _
~ V" -1, 'SE: SARDER SING}-I
LOTUS ME\zSION.,_
~--.PL=_3'1' N0'.3.1}32';~AE}. TO MIRA
SUPER SPEC1A.LiTY HOSPITAL
MIYIPUE,' HYDERABAD.
. _ TSR1"SA:*R13AR BALBIR SINGH
_ { *NO.8'--:6»70, UDGIR ROAD
:
' " (EY SR1 S_K.VENKATA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2
c.A.23/2004 E\?S§;Q.P.74/1.995SA%7
.../APPLICANT
.RESPONDEN1"S
SRI VISHWANATH SHENDGE, ADV. FOR R1)
23....
=-...J
S
t
THIS APPLICATION IS FILED U/S 543(1)
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 READ WITH RULE
COMPANIES (comm RULES, 1959 PRAYING TO DEct.AEE.jj'EH..A'r
RESPONDENTS No.1 3: 2 THE EX--DIRECTORS AT ,i.ta'rEEiziL
AND RELEVANT TIMES HAVE BEEN GUILTY_-GI-‘» .1\§ISI+’EASAi’%CE’
AND BREACH OF TRUST IN RELATiON”‘TQ EHE.co1xz1_EA.N*{ as
AFORESAIDANDETC. ”
This application corriingiioht for hearing the’; court 9 if
made the following;
. a~’._: _ E j. . . ,, _
This application 543(1) of the
Companies_Ac§f Eiable to pay a sum
of ‘1-8%
Thigh».Aict§t1.–£’i’s~–9.§idé order dated 21.1.1999 in
Co.,1§?:.i7i¥i/”i995 order to wind up the company in
‘ !ViVqui.datiVo11.”«Thve. respondents are the Directors of the company in
iiqu’itiatiot1ii:’I__fifter the order of winding up respondents filed
statetrierit of affairs. Though the Official Liquidator pointed out
if eertain defects in the statement of affairs, the respondents failed
rectify the same. The Official Liquidator on the basis of the
‘r-
flu
balance sheet as on 31.3.2000 noticed that on of
negligence, failure and Inisapplication of funds on the’ .
respondents, the company in liquidati_on.suffer_ed loss at .exteI.1__t 00
of Rs.6,58,542/—- and therefore he court”
Section 543( 1) of the Companies
3. The secondvresphonderilt iente’1’ed’:lappearance and filed
statement of. that there is no
negligevncesv not personally gained
anything’ that as the Directors of the
company in’iiqnidaVtii*on’*the}} Worked to the greatest advantage of
0 – the “coIIti–pany’ in liquidation.
4,. Official Liquidator examined one witness and
produced “certain documents. The second respondent examined
dhirnsellf as RW.I and produced certain documents. Heard
00 Wargurnerrts on both the side and perused the application papers.
r-~
die
5. The claim of the Official Liquidator is under the
following heads:
(1) Value ofvehicles
(ii) Cash and Bank Baa’-ancez VIE-3v”7l.l(li(I.._’i:._/_l.
(iii) Fixed Deposit imoi
(iv) Sundry Debtorls_t_outstaiigiixilgg ;a6,2,3s.00
(V) Lgaagalt Advances’: is V’2,’inl,9s3.00
° 4′ In so fari.ast»thet._3:faii1e. of the Vehicles, the respondents
contend that in coi–1rse*._of~°time, the value of the vehicles was
gieor.eciatedi’l’3nd asloii”ll.4.2000 the written down value stood at
I lIgeai”ned Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits
that” reslpoiidents have deposited this amount of Rs.2I,580/-.
.. Tlietefoie the claim of Official Liquidator under this head is liable
to be rejected.
–.
E
at
7. So also a sum of Rs.187/– under the head Clas’h. and
bank balance was also depositedfby the respondentsIanditlierefojre _
the claim under this head is lialile to be..rejecte_-;lj ” id:
8. ‘The Ckfinl of Ra41¢Rxv- unset ihs=he;a feed
deposit was a bank gL1arantee_V”fi.1rnishedV by tl1e”‘co’rnpany in-V
liquidation to the Bida’r”folr’–silip.piy of ‘electricity. On
3.4.2004, the bank issued Van:endoirse1n.eriti.”.stlating that the bank
guarantee is Iiotliin-“force. ‘i.l’l’1e revoked the bank guarantee
mm@m@Q@®@®®mmmmmTmmB
adjusted’ thlisq of”‘«–.l{s’.4l,800/- towards electrical power
constifnption lchadrges. I Therefore, the claim of the Official
~ Liquidator under this head is liable to be rejected.
A last claim of the Official Liquidator for a sum of
is in respect of debts, loans and advances. These
V’ amounts are payable to the company in liquidation. There is no
gileading and evidence to show that as on the date of Winding up
,..’%’~
mt.
order on 21.1.1999, these debts are time barred and theppsairnephad
happened due to the negligence and failure on fie
respondent — Directors. In the absence. of any suciisipvleading and 0 i ll
evidence, it is not possible to accept th..ei’clai1ln_Vof.the”Q’ffic’i’al_
Liquidator under this head. Thatiapart it is seen the record 0
that to an extent of pdreposited the company
with the following statutoryilautholritpieslii”~ V jp ._
Depcssiiz{saga”i’e1ep’hiané’nggptjfivdar Rs. 6,175.00
:jnep¢st1:v§;;:m§lkEB;;Bia_ar_ V Rs.1,’78,627.00
Deposit of
_ ‘TeleCiOtI1f1111ni–Caitiof1\..\ts Rs. 10,000.00
Beposit in NSCl,”isubmitted to
Comtn_erc.i_al Tax Dept. Rs. 2,000.00
Lear’n’ed counsel for the Official Liquidator has not
seriouslsr disputed the above deposits made by the company in
liquidation to the Various statutory authorities. In the
I”-~..j.-Hm
Z
circumstances, and for the reasons stated above, the applicatign is
hereby dismissed.
M05 _ " " n