2000 (5) TMI 1015 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Criminal complaint under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 for failure to comply with filing statements of affairs to the Official Liquidator.
- Responsibility of accused Directors for filing the required statements.
- Consideration of reasonable excuses for the delay in filing the statements.
- Determination of penalties and fines for non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a criminal complaint filed under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, which imposes penalties for failure to comply with filing statements of affairs to the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator reported that the company was ordered to be wound up, and accused Directors failed to submit the required statements.

2. The responsibility for filing the statements of affairs was attributed to accused Directors who were in office at the relevant time. The accused No. 9 was specifically mentioned as being responsible for the non-compliance in this case.

3. The judgment considered the timeline of events, noting that the winding-up order was passed on a specific date, and the deadline for filing the statements of affairs was not met by the accused Directors. The Official Liquidator issued notices for compliance, leading to the filing of the criminal complaint.

4. The court examined the reasons provided by accused No. 9 for the delay in filing the statements, including issues with record availability and delays from banks in providing necessary accounts. The judgment emphasized the importance of reasonable excuses as per the Act.

5. After considering the provisions of the Act and submissions from the parties involved, the court determined the penalty for accused No. 9. Despite the potential for a significant fine, the court reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000 due to the reasons presented by the accused, who was directed to deposit the penalty within a specified timeframe.

6. Ultimately, the judgment discharged other accused individuals from the filing of statements of affairs, as they were deemed not responsible. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with legal requirements and the consequences of non-compliance, while also considering reasonable excuses for delays in fulfilling obligations.