Allowed

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Kaizen Wheels Pvt.Ltd

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016OLR/160/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the Official Liquidator's report seeking directions to file a criminal complaint under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 against ex-directors for failing to file a statement of affairs and hand over books of account. The court also permitted recommending their names for blocking on the MCA website after a show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Prayer clause (a) for filing a criminal complaint under Section 454(5) allowed. Prayer clause (b) for blocking names permitted subject to issuing a show cause notice.

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay Vs Kaizen… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

olr 160-2016.doc

1/2

sat

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

¶5

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR'S REPORT NO. 160 OF 2016 IN

¶6

COMPANY PETITION NO. 20 OF 2014

¶7

In the matter of the Companies Act, I of 1956 And In the matter of M/s.Kaizen Wheels Pvt.Limited (In Liqn.)

¶8

M/s.L & T Finance Ltd. …Petitioner

¶9

Mr.Vinod Sharma, OL with Ms.Yogini Chauhan, Dy.OL.

¶10

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶11

17 NOVEMBER 2016

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The report seeks directions for filing of criminal complaint under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 against the ex-directors of the company (In Liqn.). The order is sought on account of failure to file statement of affairs and hand over books of account of the company (In Liqn.) to the Official Liquidator without any reasonable cause, thereby rendering themselves liable for punishment under the provisions of Section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶14

2 The Official Liquidator produces record to show that the report was duly served on the ex-director mentioned at Serial No.1 of paragraph 11

¶15

sat 2/2 olr 160-2016.doc

¶16

of the report. The packet of service sent to the ex-director mentioned at Serial No.2 has come back with the remark “Item delivery attempted, addressee moved.”.

¶17

3 Considering the fact that the statement of affairs has not been filed as also the fact that books of account have not been delivered, there is a case for prosecuting the ex-directors in a criminal complaint. The directors do not show any cause as of now. Such cause as they have to show in the criminal complaint, can be considered at the hearing of the criminal complaint. Accordingly, prayer clause (a) of the report is allowed.

¶18

4 Prayer clause (b) of the Report seeks permission for blocking the names of ex-directors mentioned in the report on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Official Liquidator is permitted to recommend the names of the ex-directors mentioned in the Report to the Ministry for blocking them in terms of the Ministry's circular dated 4 June 2015, after issuing a show cause notice to them in accordance with that circular.

¶19

(S.C. Gupte, J.)

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Kaizen Wheels Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay v. Kaizen Wheels Pvt.Ltd

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

Ajay Podar Vs Official Liquidator of National Traders Ltd.

Ajay Podar Vs Official Liquidator of Bombay Piece Goods Yarn and Plastics Ltd.

Jiangsu Guotai International Group Winsun Import and Export Co. Ltd. Vs Danopharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Cin U24100MH2009PTC189592

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay Vs Trimurty Housing Development India.

Anand Shelters Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sou Sarita Sanjay Goyal

Huntsman International (India) Private Limited Vs 0