This appeal sought to set aside an order directing prosecution of a former director who ceased to hold office before the company's winding-up. The court held the appellant could not be liable as he was not in charge when the order was passed.
The order directing prosecution of the appellant is set aside to the extent it directed such prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 27.02.2017 Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Nooty. Ramamohana Rao
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam
K.Jayaraman ...Appellant
Vs
(under liquidation)
This Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in C.A.No.2811 of 2008, in C.P.No.356 of 2003, dated 13.02.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.Gupta and Ravi For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.R.Sundar For Respondent-2 : Mr.N.Damodaran For Respondent-3 : No appearance
JUDGEMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.,)
This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order passed on 13.02.2012, in C.A.No.2811 of 2008, in C.P.No.356 of 2003.
of the said Company were required to file the statement of affairs. For securing such statement of affairs to be filed, C.A.No.2656 of 2008, has been moved by the Official Liquidator in the aforementioned Petition in C.P.No.356 of 2003. Notice was served in the said Application, and since the present appellant has been arrayed as third respondent therein, he has filed his objections, pointing out that the Company has called for its 11th Annual General Meeting on 29.09.1997. One of the agenda items of the ordinary business to be transacted at the said Annual General Meeting was appointment of a Director in the place of present appellant, whose term of Office was coming to an end. According to the appellant, he was not re-elected at the Annual General Meeting held on 29.09.1997 as Director. Consequently, he seized to be a Director of the Company under liquidation. This apart, on 01.10.1997, the appellant appears to have taken up the matter with the Managing Director of the Company, requesting him to file the necessary information with the Registrar of Companies in Form 32 and other Statutory compliances, so that, the appellant may not be mulcted with any accountability for the post period of his seizing to be the Director of the Company.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
sd
To
1.The Official Liquidator,
High Court, Madras of
M/s.Pet Pack (P) Limited
( under liquidation)
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar
Original Side, High Court, Chennai-104
+1 cc to M/s.Gupta & Ravi Advocate sr 12327/17
+1 cc to Mr.N.Damodaran Advocate sr 13162/17
+1 cc to Mr.S.R.Sundar Advocate sr 12888
O.S.A.No.369 of 2012
ca(co)
aa14/03/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant can be prosecuted for failure to file the statement of affairs given he ceased to be a Director prior to the winding-up order.
Whether the impugned order directing prosecution of the appellant in C.A. No. 2811 of 2008 should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Jayaraman
The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras of M/s. Pet Pack (P) Limited
V. Gurusamy
N. Dakshinamoorthy
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
