Dismissed

Prem Nath Jaiswal v. the Official Liquidator U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2019SPLA/1373/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeals filed by Prem Nath Jaiswal against conviction and sentencing for failing to submit company records were dismissed. The Higher Court held the findings of fact were not perverse, subsequent compliance did not mitigate the offence, and the appellant's failure to appear deprived him of any ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Both special appeals were dismissed for lack of merit; conviction and sentence remain.

Prem Nath Jaiswal Vs the Official Liquidator U.P… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1373 of 2005

¶3

Appellant :- Prem Nath Jaiswal Respondent :- The Official Liquidator U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- Rajnath N. Shukla,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶4

With

¶5

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1141 of 2005

¶6

Appellant :- Prem Nath Jaiswal Respondent :- Official Liquidator And Others Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Ganguly Counsel for Respondent :- Anjani K. Mishra,Ashish.Agrawal,Pranjal Mehrotra

¶7

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶8

Heard Sri P.K. Ganguli, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for Official Liquidator.

¶9

These two appeals are connected having arisen from judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 05.09.2005, holding petitioner guilty of charge and order dated 17.10.2005, imposing one year imprisonment with Rs.1000/fine per day with effect from 27.05.1999 (21 days after winding up).

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant had already resigned from the Directorship submitting resignation on 24.9.1994, which was accepted by the Board of Director of the Company on 9.12.1994 and communicated to Registrar of the Company also on 31.12.1994, therefore, there was no liability of appellant with respect to submission of records or documents of Company or other assets to the Official Liquidator inasmuch as after provisional winding up on

¶11

18.9.1997, Provisional Liquidator was appointed.

¶12

Our attention was drawn to Annexure-12 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal which is a resolution of the Board of Directors, accepting appellant's resignation from the post of Managing Director. However, when questioned, learned counsel for the appellant neither could give any reference or details of notice issued for summoning or certified copy of the documents of Company to prove that any meeting was actually held.

¶13

Regarding appellant's claim in respect of submission of his resignation, the Chairman of Company Sri Munna Lal Jaiswal denied to have received any such resignation from the appellant. Moreover, no document was produced to show that alleged resignation was submitted and accepted by the Board of Directors at any point of time and was communicated to the Registrar of Company. It was in these circumstances that considering the factual aspects of the matter, learned Single Judge held the appellant guilty and sentenced as stated above.

¶14

The findings of fact recorded by learned Single Judge could not be shown to be perverse or illegal and we do not find any ground for interference therein. The impugned punishment order is based on proved facts and appellant was rightly found guilty under Section 451(5) of Companies Act, 1956.

¶15

It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that whatever liability was fixed by the Court that has been made good by the appellant.

¶16

We do not find that subsequent compliance of order of learned Single Judge would mitigate the offence or earlier conviction would stand diluted.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that

¶18

appellant has never been convicted and it is for the first time, therefore, a lenient view should be taken in the matter of punishment. We find this ground not sufficient to reduce the punishment awarded by learned Single Judge.

¶19

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and in view of the fact that the appellant did not care to obey the order to appear before Court on 20.9.2005 on account of which non-bailable warrant was issued against him and also that he did not respond to the letters of Official Liquidator, we find no ground for interference in these appeals.

¶20

Both the appeals lack merit and are, accordingly, dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 5.2.2019 Manoj

Prem Nath Jaiswal v. the Official Liquidator U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Nath Jaiswal v. the Official Liquidator U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bucheye Batteries P.Ltd. on Behalf of Khalid Mukhtar Vs Official Liquidator Attached to the High Court Ald. and Others

Ex-Jwo Harikesh Pandey Vs Union of India Thru Secy and Others

Dinesh Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pt. Durga Prasad Badri Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Ram Asrey Dubey Vs D.I.O.S. Jaunpur and Others