Allowed

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited

Bombay HC4 Dec 2015OLR/112/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an original liquidation order seeking leave to file a criminal complaint under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. It permitted the complaint only against executive directors, excluding non-executive independent directors who lacked possession of company assets or records.

What did the court decide?

Petition for leave to file a criminal complaint under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 against executive directors permitted; complaint against non-executive directors excluded.

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay Vs Shree… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

9.olr.112.2015.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

OLR NO. 112 OF 2015 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO. 257 OF 2015

¶6

In the matter of the Companies Act, I of 1956

¶7

And

¶8

In the matter of M/s. Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd. (In Liqn.)

¶9

M/s Eros International Media Ltd.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Mr.Balraj Kulkarni i/b PRS Legal for applicant Rupesh Amlani.

¶12

Mr.Anoshak Daver i/b Seema Hunnurkar for noticee no.3.

¶13

Mr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, senior advocate a/w. Mr.Nitin Thakker, senior advocate with Mr.Nikhil Karnawat, Mr.Bhojraj Barte i/b Kalpesh Joshi for noticee no.5.

¶14

Mr.Chandrakant K. Sachde, noticee no.4-Ex-director for Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd.

¶15

Mr.S.Ramakantha, O.L. present.

¶16

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATED : 4^TH DECEMBER, 2015

¶17

P.C.

¶18

1 This OLR is for leave to file a criminal complaint under Section 454

¶19

(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 against all the Ex-directors for non-filing of

¶20

the statement of affairs of the company (in liquidation).

1/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

9.olr.112.2015.doc

2 As mentioned in paragraph 2 of the report, there were 8 directors of the company in liquidation.

¶26

3 An affidavit in reply to the report has been filed by noticee no.3 Ashok Vrajlal Ladhani and noticee no.5- Hetal Naren Thakore. In the affidavit filed on behalf of noticee no.3-Ashok Vrajlal Ladhani, it is mentioned that he was a non-executive independent director and did not take part in day-to-day affairs of the company. He also states that he does not have any record, assets, receivables, cash and any document, books of accounts etc. of the company in his possession.

¶27

4 Likewise, noticee no.5-Hetal Naren Thakore has also stated that he was an independent non-executive director of the company and he was a practicing solicitor in Bombay High Court. He was not concerned with the day-to-day affairs and activities of the company. He has also stated that he was not involved in the financial transactions undertaken by the company. Moreover, he also resigned as a director on or from 27.05.2014.

¶28

5 I have perused the copy of the Annual Report annexed to the affidavit filed by Hetal Naren Thakore for the year 2011-2012. In the list of board of directors of the company, it is expressly mentioned that noticee no.3 Ashok

2/3

Shraddha Talekar PA

9.olr.112.2015.doc

Vrajlal Ladhani and noticee no.5-Hetal Naren Thakore are both nonexecutive independent directors.

¶34

6 While this order was being dictated, one Chandrakant K. Sachdenoticee no.4 also appeared and filed an affidavit affirmed on 4.12.2015 in which also he has mentioned that he was a non-executive director. The Annual Report mentioned earlier also reflects that the said Chandrakant K. Sachde was a non-executive independent director.

¶35

7 In the circumstances, as noticee nos.3, 4 and 5 are non-executive directors, certainly they will not have any record, assets, receivables, cash and any document. They will not be able to furnish any statement of affairs of the company in liquidation.

¶36

8 The OLR is disposed of by permitting the official liquidator to file a criminal complaint under Section 454 (5) of the Companies Act, 1956 against noticee nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8.

¶37

The OLR accordingly stands disposed.

¶38

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶39

3/3

¶40

Shraddha Talekar PA

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited

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

Transcheme Ltd. Vs Firstcorp International Ltd. and 6 Others

Mylan Laboratoties Limited and 1 Other Vs Mission Vivacare Limited Cin U24230MH1993PLC072361

Mathan Hotel Unit of Sterling Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nimbus Communication Ltd. (CIN-U99999MH1987PLC043940)

Walton Street Capital Advisors VI India Pvt. Ltd. Vs -

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay Vs Super Soaps(India) Pvt.Ltd.

Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gammon India Ltd. Cin No. L74999MH1922PLC00097