9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted as the Liquidator of the company. There were six Directors, out of whom three Directors had resigned from the Directorship in the year 1999 and another Director had resigned even earlier to 1997. Therefore, the present two applicants were continuing as Directors as on the date of the winding up order. They are permanent residents of Mumbai and it was the other Directors who were in charge of the management and the day-to-day affairs of the company. The applicant No.1 claims that he is aged and bedridden and since the company had stopped functioning since the year 1997, and since the other Directors had abandoned the company, it was the lot of the applicants to carry on the burden of the company and that notice was issued under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing list, which was duly received by the respondent on 11.03.2003. Applicants had mentioned that the company had stopped functioning since the year 1997 after the State Bank of India took over possession of the assets of the company and therefore, sought for extension of time to file any further necessary documents and available books and records, etc. The applicants and other ex-Directors had filed an application in Company Application No.941/2006 seeking that their names be deleted, as they had ceased to be Directors of the company much before the filing of the winding up petition. Accordingly, this court, by its order dated 18.09.2006 discharged one Ratan Lath, Shailesh Fernandes, and Naresh Tibrewala, as they had resigned from the Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failure to comply and therefore, were said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 538(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint is silent of the subsequent events and subsequent orders passed by this Court which were clearly overlooked in alleging that the present applicants had not complied with the directions issued. The petitioners claim that the company having stopped its activity in the year 1997, the present applicants being residents of Mumbai, were not in the know of the affairs of the company and in spite of this having got to the attention of the respondents time and again, the present proceedings initiated are unjust and would result in punishing the applicants for no fault of theirs. In any event, even if there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
