https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99729 An ex-director is not automatically excluded from a direction under section 454(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 merely because resignation preceded the winding-up order, but the court must first ascertain on an individual basis whether he is capable of furnishing a meaningful statement of affairs. A blanket or mechanical direction against former officers is impermissible where they lack access to company records or cannot usefully comply, and the court must hear their personal case before exposing them to penal consequences. Prior relief under section 633(2) also weighed against requiring the same obligations again. The impugned direction was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Wed, 09 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:58:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99729 An ex-director is not automatically excluded from a direction under section 454(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 merely because resignation preceded the winding-up order, but the court must first ascertain on an individual basis whether he is capable of furnishing a meaningful statement of affairs. A blanket or mechanical direction against former officers is impermissible where they lack access to company records or cannot usefully comply, and the court must hear their personal case before exposing them to penal consequences. Prior relief under section 633(2) also weighed against requiring the same obligations again. The impugned direction was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99729