9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence to the statement of affairs which was filed by the respondents, have claimed the amount under different heads, in all amounting to Rs. 1,87,43,810.96 ps. as indicated in the application. 2. The respondents on being served have appeared and filed their objection statement and have disputed the claim put forth in the application. In that view, the matter had been set down for evidence and Sri M. Ramamurthy, working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Official Liquidator was examined as P.W.1 and the documents as at Exhs.P1 to P11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Sri M.R. Harish, erstwhile Director of the company in liquidation was examined as RW1 and the documents at Exhs. D1 to D19 were marked. 3. In the light of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation are as follows: (a) As per Annexure-I to the statement of affairs, the stock of raw materials, cash in hand, cash at bank. NSC and deposits were mentioned at Rs. 2,66,695/-. It is alleged that the same has not been handed over to the Official Liquidator. (b) As per Annexure-I. list B to the statement of affairs, the land, building and machineries at Vaniyambadi unit, shares, cash at bank, deposits valued at Rs. 1,60,99,295/- is indicated and the same is not handed over to the Official Liquidator is the allegation. (c) As per Annexure-1 to statement of affairs, the hypothecated plant and machinery at Bangalore unit were valued at Rs. 4,00,000/- whereas the amount realised was only Rs. 1,75,000/- and as such, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration to whom the property was hypothecated has taken over the same and in any event, the seized unit was ultimately auctioned with the co-operation of the Official Liquidator and the amount realized in the public auction was in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-, which was the value of the property. Therefore, the question of paying the balance does not arise. It is their further contention that in any event, the amount outstanding to the KSFC has been thereafter settled by the Directors themselves as they were personally liable which is a relevant conduct to indicate that the respondents had not utilized the company's funds for their personal benefits. Insofar as the other claims, it is the specific contention that the same have been made over to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the raw materials and other immovables of the company and the receipts of the amount available in the bank, the said witness has admitted that it has been furnished to the office of the Official Liquidator. Even with regard to the manner in which the property at Vanyambadi and in Bangalore has been taken over by SIDBI and the KSFC has been suggested to the said witness and the said witness has accepted the same. 9. Before referring to the specific answers elicited, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence tendered on behalf of the respondents through RW1. A perusal of the affidavit of the said witness would make specific reference to each of the items, which have been initiated. Prior to the same, detailed reference is made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials (accessories) valued at Rs. 2,20,000/- alongwith stock statement, books, records of the company. 32. The respondents have paid a sum of Rs.137/- being the cash on hand, with the Official Liquidator on 16.7.2004. The receipt is marked ad Ex. D. 15. 33. I further state that regarding the balance amount, a sum of Rs.46,558/- shown in the Statement of Affairs, towards cash in hand, deposits and National Savings Certificate, while the deposits and NSC are pledged with SBI for the loan provided to the Company. 34. The sum of Rs. 14,508/- representing cash at Bank, the said amount is still with the SBI and the directors are not entitled to deal with it, after the winding-up order. The Official Liquidator has to get the amount from the Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to the finance made by the SIDBI is stated in the affidavit and the fact that the same was hypothecated to SIDBI along with the assets, stocks and raw materials is also asserted and the same has been accepted by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. Therefore, insofar as the said property, when the same was hypothecated to SIDBI and when it is not in dispute that the SIDBI has taken possession of the said property, the question of respondents handing over the same to the Official Liquidator would not arise since ultimately this is a matter to be sorted out between the Official Liquidator and the SIDBI. If at all the question relating to hypothecation of properties belonging to the company in liquidation is to be considered in an appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
