https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99458 The court held that directors who had resigned before the winding-up order could still be held liable under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956. It emphasized that an order could be passed against directors who were in office even before one year of the winding-up order. Despite the directors' resignations, the court found it necessary to direct them to submit a statement of affairs as no other individuals were available to provide the required information. The court clarified the interpretation of Section 454(2) and directed all respondents to file the statement of affairs to ensure compliance with the law. en-us Wed, 04 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:35:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99458 The court held that directors who had resigned before the winding-up order could still be held liable under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956. It emphasized that an order could be passed against directors who were in office even before one year of the winding-up order. Despite the directors' resignations, the court found it necessary to direct them to submit a statement of affairs as no other individuals were available to provide the required information. The court clarified the interpretation of Section 454(2) and directed all respondents to file the statement of affairs to ensure compliance with the law. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 04 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99458