TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Ex-directors held accountable for non-compliance and evasion of duties.</h1> <h3>Official Liquidator Versus Mahendra Prasad</h3> Official Liquidator Versus Mahendra Prasad - [2011] 105 SCL 566 (Patna) Issues:- Failure to submit statement of affairs after winding up order- Ex-directors not cooperating with Official Liquidator- Claim of resignation by ex-director- Allegations of misleading the court regarding company assetsIssue 1: Failure to submit statement of affairs after winding up orderThe case involves a company petition filed under the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the winding up of a company. After a winding up order was issued, the ex-directors failed to submit the statement of affairs of the company to the Official Liquidator within the prescribed time. The Official Liquidator filed a report stating the non-compliance and requested permission to proceed with prosecution against the ex-management under section 454(5) of the Act.Issue 2: Ex-directors not cooperating with Official LiquidatorThe ex-directors, particularly one of them, filed an application to be exonerated from submitting the statement of affairs and dropping the prosecution case against him. However, the court found that the ex-directors, including the petitioner, were not cooperating and intentionally avoiding their obligations. Despite claims of resignation, evidence showed that the ex-directors were still liable to submit the statement of affairs, but they failed to do so.Issue 3: Claim of resignation by ex-directorOne of the ex-directors claimed to have resigned from the company back in 1993 and provided documents to support this claim. However, the court found discrepancies in the evidence presented, including the lack of formal resignation filings with the Registrar of Companies. The court concluded that the claim of resignation was frivolous and an attempt to mislead the court regarding the company's assets.Issue 4: Allegations of misleading the court regarding company assetsThe court determined that the ex-directors, especially the petitioner, were engaged in misleading the court about the company's assets by not submitting the required statement of affairs. Despite claims of resignation and lack of liability, the court found the ex-directors responsible for the non-compliance and intentional evasion of their duties. The court disposed of the reports, petitions, and affidavits accordingly, emphasizing the seriousness of the ex-directors' actions.In conclusion, the court held that the ex-directors' actions were intentional and aimed at misleading the court regarding the company's assets. The court rejected the claims of resignation and non-liability, emphasizing the ex-directors' obligations to cooperate with the Official Liquidator. The case will continue with further criminal proceedings based on the court's findings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
