Technical default by a liquidator may be excused where conduct is honest and reasonable, including relief from apprehended prosecution.

A liquidator may be excused for a technical omission in a company return where the surrounding circumstances show honest and reasonable conduct, including a credible explanation for the entries made and no convincing rebuttal. The Court accepted that the disputed amount reflected cheque payment to a foreign creditor and necessary clearance expenses, so relief from liability was warranted under section 281 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The Court also construed the relief provision broadly to cover apprehended criminal prosecution under sections 282 and 282A, and held that dissolution of the company did not bar such relief where future liability was still in issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners, as liquidators, were entitled to relief under section 281 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 for the alleged negligence or default in showing Rs. 30,000 in the return instead of separately stating the cheque payment and expenses. (ii) Whether the Court could grant relief against apprehended criminal liability under sections 282 and 282A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, even after the company had been wound up and dissolved.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners, as liquidators, were entitled to relief under section 281 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 for the alleged negligence or default in showing Rs. 30,000 in the return instead of separately stating the cheque payment and expenses.

Analysis: The explanation that Rs. 18,718 was paid by cheque to settle the foreign creditor's claim and the balance represented necessary expenses for obtaining clearance was accepted. The surrounding circumstances, including the support of the Registrar, the absence of convincing rebuttal material, the age of the matter, the loss of records, and the technical nature of the omission, showed honest and reasonable conduct. The default, if any, was treated as technical rather than substantive.

Conclusion: Relief under section 281 was warranted, and the petitioners were entitled to be excused from liability arising out of the alleged technical default.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could grant relief against apprehended criminal liability under sections 282 and 282A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, even after the company had been wound up and dissolved.

Analysis: The provision was construed broadly, on the footing that the word "claim" in the relief clause extends to apprehended criminal prosecution as well as civil liability. The Court followed the view that relief may be granted by the High Court against future prosecution, and rejected the contention that dissolution of the company barred such relief. Since the explanation was accepted, the apprehended proceedings under the penal provisions did not justify continuing exposure to liability.

Conclusion: The Court held that relief could be granted against apprehended prosecution under sections 282 and 282A notwithstanding dissolution of the company.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were relieved from apprehended liability arising from the disputed return and related expenses, and the petition succeeded to that extent with costs left to be borne by the parties themselves.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 281 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, a liquidator who has acted honestly and reasonably may be excused from liability for a technical default, and the Court may also grant relief against apprehended criminal prosecution where the statutory language is broad enough to include such future liability.

---