Allowed

The Official Liquidator v. -

Telangana HC26 Feb 2013COMPA/1288/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the Official Liquidator's application to condone a delay of 266 days in filing half-yearly accounts and audit reports. The accounts for the period ending 31.03.2010 were approved, taken on record, and the Official Liquidator was permitted to pay the balance audit fee.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 266 days in filing half-yearly accounts and audit report was condoned; accounts were approved and taken on record; Official Liquidator permitted to pay balance audit fee; costs to be met from

The Official Liquidator Vs - — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

COMPANY APPLICATION No.1288 of 2011 in C.P.No.133 of 1997

¶3

Date: February 26, 2013

¶4

The Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … Applicant

¶5

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶7

COMPANY APPLICATION No.1288 of 2011 in C.P.No.133 of 1997

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

This Company Application is filed by the Official Liquidator attached to this Court under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 298 and 306 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to condone the delay of 266 days in filing the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation along with the audit report for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010 and to consider, approve and take on record the half-yearly accounts along with audit report for the said period. The Official Liquidator also prays for a direction to pay the balance audit fee to the auditor and for costs.

¶10

2. By order dated 30.11.2010 passed in C.A. No.1333 of 2010 in R.C.C. No.2 of 1995, this Court approved the panel of M/s.Murthy & Kanth, M/s. Padmanabha Rao & Co., M/s. PSN Ravi Shankar & Associates, M/s. KBS Associates and M/s. Sarathy & Balu, Chartered Accountants, for auditing the financial statements of the companies in liquidation.

¶11

3 . It is stated that the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation pertinent to this application were audited by one of the aforestated Chartered Accountants and the audit certificate was received from the said Chartered Accountant certifying that the halfyearly financial accounts of the company in liquidation for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010 were in order. However, as the said certificate along with various other certificates, furnished by the said Chartered Accountant in respect of the other companies in liquidation, were misplaced, there was delay in filing of the application for approving the duly audited half-yearly financial accounts of the company in liquidation. As adequate reasons have been given to explain the delay on the part of the Official Liquidator in filing an application for approval of the half-yearly accounts of the company in liquidation, the delay aforementioned is condoned.

¶12

4. The Official Liquidator has placed on record the auditor’s report certifying that proper books of accounts as required by law had been maintained and the receipts and payments accounts maintained by the Official Liquidator gives a true and fair view as to the realization and disbursements of the company in liquidation during the period. The affidavit verifying the account is also filed by the Official Liquidator along with a statement of account in Form No.144, detailing the total realizations up to 31.03.2010 as Rs.21,29,375.80 ps and the total disbursements up to 31.03.2010 at Rs.15,04,637.90 ps.

¶13

6. In the light of the aforestated documents, the half-yearly audited accounts placed before this Court by the Official Liquidator for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010 in respect of the company in liquidation is approved and taken on record. The Official Liquidator is permitted to pay the balance fee to the auditor. The costs of this application shall be met from the funds of the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator shall ensure compliance with Section 462 (4) of the Companies Act, 1956.

¶14

7. The Company Application is ordered accordingly.

¶15

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. Date: February 26, 2013. BSB

The Official Liquidator v. -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator v. -

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

v. venkata laxmi Vs M. Venkateswara Prasada REddy

M/s. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd. Vs M/s. Golla Engineering Private Limited

Maddipatla Chakravarthi, Vs The Jr. Engineer, Irrigation Department

The Official Liquidator Vs -

The Official Liquidator Vs -

The Official Liquidators Vs -