9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies Act for their non-filing the statement of affairs of the company within the statutory period of limitation of 21 days from the date of winding up order. The charge sheet was read out to the respondents and they have denied the same. I have gone through the oral evidence as well as the documents produced on record by the parties. Reading the statements of CW-1, V.K. Verma, and RW-2, Jia Lal, as well as a perusal of the notice dated May 25, 1990, for filing the statement of affairs of the company, it emerges that the notice, exhibit P-1, was served on the directors of the respondent-company. The respondents have denied the receipt of notice, but the statement of CW-1, V.K. Verma, official liquidator, who proved the signatures of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no dispute that the statement of affairs of the company was not filed till May 2, 1991. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents is that it is a case of delayed filing of the statement of affairs of the company. In defence, it was put forth that the official liquidator did not supply the prescribed forms nor any notice was issued by him. It was further stated by the respondents that the official liquidator sealed the office, including the account books. It is only on making available the account books by the official liquidator to the respondents that the balance-sheet was drawn probably in December, 1990, and filed. It was stated that the winding up order was not in the knowledge of the directors. No invent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of time could be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing. The court never fixed the date within which the statement of affairs of the company could have been filed. The respondents were statutorily liable to file the statement of affairs of the company within 21 days from the date of appointment of the official liquidator which was the terminus quo for the purpose of filing the statement of affairs of the company. The said period was never extended nor anybody applied for it. The court did not fix any period within which the statement of affairs of the company can be filed. The respondents took no steps in spite of service of notice for filing the statements of affairs of the company, apart from the fact that they had the knowled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st within the maximum period of extension, i.e., three months, even by calculating the period from December 20, 1990, till May, 1991. The ends of justice would be amply met if a punishment of Rs. 100 per day is imposed upon the respondents for the remaining period for not filing the statement of affairs of the company. Consequently, I hold the respondents guilty for not filing the statement of affairs of the company within the statutory time. No plausible defence for filing the belated statement of affairs of the company was offered. I, therefore, award a punishment of Rs. 100 per day totalling Rs. 13,200 to each of the directors of the respondent-company. The company petition is disposed of accordingly. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Corpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
