Statement of affairs duty under company law depends on statutory status and access to records, not past office alone.

Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 attaches the duty to file and verify a statement of affairs to persons who are directors or chief officers on the relevant date, while other persons can be required to comply only on notice from the official liquidator or on court direction. An ex-director who had resigned long before the winding-up order, and against whom no material showed possession of the company's books, papers, or necessary information, cannot be treated as in default without a reasonable excuse. The statutory basis for proceeding against such a person must be established by proof of status or capability to furnish the information.

---

---

Issues: Whether an ex-director, who had resigned years before the winding-up order and was not shown to have knowledge of or access to the company's books and papers, could be required to submit and verify a statement of affairs and be proceeded against for non-compliance under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 454 distinguishes between persons who are directors or other chief officers on the relevant date and other persons who may be required by the official liquidator or by order of the court to submit and verify the statement of affairs. The obligation under sub-section (3) applies to those bound to file by virtue of being officers on the relevant date, while persons falling within the wider class under sub-section (2) can be called upon only when the official liquidator issues notice or the court gives direction. The respondent had ceased to be a director long before the winding-up order, and no material was placed to show that he was a director on the relevant date or that he possessed the information necessary to prepare the statement. The record also showed no basis to disbelieve his plea that he had no access to the books, papers, or affairs of the company. In these circumstances, the essential foundation for treating his omission as a default without reasonable excuse was not established.

Conclusion: The respondent could not be held liable for failure to file the statement of affairs on the facts proved, and the company application was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability to file a statement of affairs under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 depends on the person's statutory status on the relevant date or on a valid requisition supported by material showing that the person is capable of furnishing the required information; an ex-director without knowledge or access to the company's records cannot be proceeded against for non-compliance in the absence of such foundation.

---