9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under section 177(6) of the Indian Companies Act 2. Jurisdiction of the Official Receiver to call for information 3. Interpretation of section 177-A regarding submission of statements by Official Liquidators Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition seeking revision of the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate convicting the petitioners under section 177(6) of the Indian Companies Act. The case involves the winding up of a company named Kandagoundanchavadi Balachandra Ganesa Nidhi, Limited, which initially underwent voluntary liquidation in 1934. Subsequently, the company's name was struck off under section 247(6) of the Act in 1937. However, in 1943, the company was restored by a court order and directed to be wound up by the Court under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore was appointed as the Official Liquidator for the winding-up process. The petitioners, who were former liquidators of the company, were prosecuted for failing to furnish information as required under section 177-A. The primary issue raised was whether the case should be treated as a voluntary liquidation or a liquidation by order of the Court. The Court held that since the company was restored and directed to be wound up by the Court, it was considered a case of liquidation by order of the Court. Therefore, the provisions of section 177 of the Act were applicable in this scenario. Another contention was regarding the jurisdiction of the Official Receiver to call for information from the accused petitioners. It was argued that the Official Receiver did not have the Court's direction to seek information. However, the Court interpreted section 177-A and emphasized that the accused, as former Official Liquidators, were obligated to provide the necessary information as per the Act. The Court clarified that the requirement to submit statements was not contingent upon specific directions from the Court in this context. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the interpretation of section 177-A concerning the submission of statements by Official Liquidators. It was established that the accused, being former Official Liquidators, were bound to provide the required information under section 177-A(2)(a) without the explicit direction of the Court. The Court rejected the argument that the accused could only be compelled to submit statements upon the Court's specific directive, emphasizing their obligation as former officers of the company. Ultimately, the petition for revision was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the petitioners under section 177(6) of the Indian Companies Act. The judgment underscored the legal obligations of former Official Liquidators in providing information during the winding-up process, irrespective of the need for explicit Court directions in certain situations.
|
