9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was not realised? Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are due and payable ₹ 6,096 and ₹ 18,126 under the head of account, cash in hand and cash at Bank as disclosed in the audited balance sheet made up to 31-3-1998 together with interest at 18 per cent from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 ? Held that:- It is no doubt true that in the balance sheet Ex.P3 duly signed by 1st respondent Managing Director of the company as on 31-3-1993 discloses ₹ 1,61,605 towards loans and advances as detailed in Schedule-I. So also under the head of account cash in hand and Bank discloses ₹ 24,222 which the ex-directors, respondents herein have failed, in the first place, to deposit with the Official ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount of Rs. 26,83,000 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. ( c )Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount Rs. 1,61,605 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. ( d )Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount of Rs. 24,222 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. ( e )To or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were the directors of the company as on the date of winding up order. The factory, land and building, plant and machinery of the applicant located at Doddaballapura were under the custody M/s. Karnataka State Financial Corporation. The applicant filed CA No. 1149/1999 under section 454(5A) of the Act against tne ex-directors of the company-in-liquidation for not filing statement of affairs. One of the ex-directors, 1st respondent herein filed statement of affairs, since defective, notices were issued to the ex-directors for rectification and that application is said to be pending disposal. 4. This Court having directed the Official Liquidator to engage the services of M/s. K.S. Ramprasad and Company to investigate into the affairs of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by way of evidence of PW-1. Learned counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents submits that he has no instructions in the matter, which is the very same submission as recorded in the order sheet dated 21-3-2009. 7. The following questions arise for decision making : ( i )Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are liable to make good Rs. 26,83,000 with interest at 18 per cent p.a. with effect from 26-2-1999 being the difference of value declared in statement of affairs and the valuation by M/s. KSFC on 19-9-2002 in respect of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, etc.? ( ii )Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 1,61,605 with interest at 18 per cent p.a. from 26-2-1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23-2-2004 is within the period stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 543 of the Act. Hence, the application is in time. 10. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the estimated value of Rs. 60,15,000 of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, as set out in the statement of affairs, Ex.P1 submitted by the 1st respondent is far in excess of the valuation of Rs. 33,32,000 of the very same fixed assets by M/s. KSFC. In other words, according to the learned counsel, there is difference of Rs. 26,83,000 between the value declared in the statement of affairs and the valuation by KSFC and, therefore, the ex-directors, the respondents herein are liable to pay the amount with interest at 18 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Official Liquidator and in the second, make available necessary material particulars of the Bank so as to make good the said sum. Apparently, this claim is not opposed by filing statement of objections or tendering evidence of the respondents. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions. In that view of the matter, it cannot but be said that the respondents are guilty of misapplication, retention and become liable and accountable for money of the applicant-company. 13. Having regard to the fact that the amounts due to the company are retained by the ex-directors, I think it appropriate to levy interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. on the said sum as against the claim for interest at the rate of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
