SRI EDUPUGANTI SUBBA RAO Vs. M/S. SUGANTI ALLOYS CASTINGS, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), REP. BY OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject -matter of these appeals is common, and all of them arise out of similar orders passed in C.A. No. 160 of 1995 in C.P. No. 68 of 1988. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. C.P. No. 68 of 1988 was filed for liquidation of a Company, by name, M/s. Suganti Alloy Castings Limited (for short 'the Company'). All the appellants herein were functioning as Directors of the Company, by the time the company petition was filed. This Court passed an order dated 27 -07 -1990, directing that the company be wound up; and the Official Liquidator, the sole respondent in these appeals, was directed to take steps, as provided for under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). There was delay in filing the Statement of Affairs, as required under Section 458 of the Act, by the Board of Directors. The respondent filed C.A. No. 142 of 1991 against the Ex. Managing Directors. On the basis of the orders passed therein, a statement of affairs was filed on 03 -12 -1991. The particulars of assets and liabilities were furnished. Schedules containing the details of the debtors to the Company were also appended.

(2.) THE respondent filed the Company Application No. 160 of 1995 under Section 543(1), read with Section 458A of the Act, for direction to the appellants, to make good, the loss sustained by the Company, on account of their inaction in recovering the debts due to it. It was pleaded that though a list of debtors was furnished along with the statement of affairs, the notices sent by the respondent could not be served in many cases, and in certain other cases, some of the debtors, either have denied the liability or sought for additional information. According to the respondent, the acts and omissions on the part of the appellants resulted in a situation, where the debts due to the company became irrecoverable, and in that view of the matter, they are personally liable, to make good the loss.

(3.) A learned single Judge of this Court passed an order dated 19 -04 -2006, holding that the appellants are jointly and severally liable to make good, the loss, on account of their failure to recover the debts due to the company. The appellants challenge the said order by filing separate appeals.