OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR Vs. K K NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by Official Liquidator of the Bharat Electric Company Ltd. under Sub-s.(5) of S.454 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company was incorporated on 29-8-1953 as a private company; and it was converted as a public company on 23-11-1959. The registered office of the company was originally at Alwaye; and subsequently it was shifted to Trivandrum. The company was wound up by this Court by its order dated 19-2-1970. The first accused was its general manager and one of the directors. The second accused is his wife; and she was another director. The complainant called upon the accused by notice dated 16-3-1970 to file the statement of affairs of the company as required by sub-s.(2) of S.454 of the Act. They did not comply with the notice. Thereupon the complainant moved this Court for an order directing the accused to submit and verify the statement of affairs of the company as required by the above provision. On 23-10-1970, this Court ordered notice to the accused allowing them one month's time to file the statement of affairs. The accused did not comply with that order also. Thereupon this complaint has been filed on the allegation that the accused made default in complying with the requirements of S.454(3) of the Act without reasonable excuse.

(2.) The accused appeared before this Court in response to the summons issued to them; and both of them pleaded not guilty. The first accused filed a statement on 18-2-1972, stating that the office of the company was raided and all its properties and books and records were removed by the State of Kerala on 3-7-1962, that the company became defunct from 1964 onwards, and that the accused are not, therefore, in a position to file any statement of affairs of the company. It is also stated that both the accused ceased to be directors of the company more than one year before the date of winding up of the company, and that the liability under S.454(2) of the Act would not apply to them. The first accused has produced a few documents along with the above statement.

(3.) The case was posted for evidence; and it has been adjourned on a number of occasions on the application of the accused. The personal appearance of the second accused had been dispensed; and she had been allowed to appear through advocate. On 5-6-1972, when the case was taken up for evidence, the second accused and her advocate were absent. Therefore, warrant was ordered to her, and the complaint in so far as it relates to the first accused alone was ordered to be proceeded with. The complainant examined one witness, who proved Exts. P1 and D1. The accused desired to be examined on oath; and so he was examined as Dw. 1 who proved Exts. D2 to D4. The parties had no further evidence. Arguments were heard on 6-6-1972.