9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d ex-director-in-charge as required under the law, in the circumstances hereinafter stated. On January 21, 1966, there was an order for winding up of the company under the provisions of the Act and the official liquidator was directed to take charge of properties and effects of the said company as liquidator. Under section 454 (3) of the Act, the accused ex-director-in-charge of the company was to submit a statement of affairs of the company in the prescribed form verified by an affidavit within twenty-one days from the relevant date, namely, the date of winding up order or within such extended time not exceeding three months from the date as the official liquidator or the court may, for special reasons appoint. On February 11, 1966, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reminder the accused ex-director-in-charge had not filed the statement of affairs as required under the law. On June 8, 1966, the accused ex-director-in-charge intimated to the official liquidator that the information called for was under compilation and that it would be supplied soon. On June 27, 1966, a complaint was filed by the official liquidator against the accused ex-director-in-charge on the ground that the accused ex-director-in-charge, without reasonable excuse, made default in complying with the requirements of section 454 of the Act, On September 10, 1966, the complaint case came up for hearing before this court. The substance of the accusations was explained to the accused ex-director-in-charge. He stated that he had de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, was defective in that it was not complete. The defence point is that it is not a case of wilful default ; the accused was trying to get back the papers from the vigilance police but he did not succeed ; he was not secreting the papers nor was he making any unlawful gain by not filing the statement of affairs as required by law. On August 10, 1966, the official liquidator informed that the statement as filed by the accused ex-director-in-charge on August 4, 1966, was defective; the accused was asked to send a revised statement. On September 9, 1966, the accused filed the revised statement, which also, was found defective. The accused was again asked to file further revised statement. On January 3, 1967, the accused filed another revised s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed, the court may relieve him, either wholly or partly, from his liability on such terms as it may think fit : Provided that in a criminal proceeding under this sub-section, the court shall have no power to grant relief from any civil liability which may attach to an officer in respect of such negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust. " In evidence, the accused ex-director-in-charge, while trying to explain the delay in filing the statement of affairs of the company, said that he could not prepare the balance-sheet, as some of the papers were seized by the vigilance police ; that the vigilance police had given a receipt for the papers seized by them from him which he had sent to the official liquidator. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
