High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
In The Matter Of Danin Leather Ltd - COMPANY PETITION No. 95 of 1997  RD-AH 16783 (25 September 2006)
Court No. 30
COMPANY PETITION NO. 95 OF 1997
In the matter of
M/s Danin Leathers Private Limited
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Present Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri S.N. Tiwari for all three Ex Directors, who are present in Court; Shri Anurag Khanna for PICUP and Shri Anajani Kumar Misra for Official Liquidator.
2. Ex Directors have done nothing to improve their sketchy statement of affairs, which does not give clear picture of assets and liabilities of the company.
3. Shri U.K. Misra has accepted notice on behalf of State Bank of India. He has not made full and complete disclosure about the accounts of M/s Danin Leathers Private Ltd., Agra. They are also required to give the details of the accounts of M/s Mahajan Tanners Ltd, if it is lying with them at Agra.
4. Shri Anurag Khanna has not served copy of the affidavit of Shri B.L. Rawat on Shri Ravi Kant.
5. The affidavit of Shri B.L. Rawat in the matter of account of M/s Danin Leathers Private Limited shows that the PICUP does not bother about its dues at all. The PICUP advanced Rs. 45 lacs to the company on 2.4.1994 under the ''Equipment Refinance Scheme'. First inspection was made on 1.9.1999, when it was reported that the unit has been destroyed by fire, which was never reported to the PICUP. The FIR was filed by the PICUP generated final report dated 25.5.2004 by police against which a protest petition is pending. The copy of the recovery certificate and date have not been given. In para 15 it is stated that the PICUP sent a letter dated 15.7.2004 to the authorities that the Ex Directors are holding shares in M/s Mahajan Tanners Limited. Thereafter nothing has been done.
6. The liability towards PICCUP as on 31.7.2006 is stated as follows;
"Principal : Rs. 40, 21, 118.02
Interest : Rs. 2, 35, 17, 282.07
Total : Rs. 2, 75, 38, 400.09"
7. The proceedings for recovery of dues clearly demonstrate that the PICUP is active connivance with the Ex Directors of the company (In Liq.), and that some one has to account for the negligence.
8. Let the Managing Director file his affidavit explaining the lackadaisical attitude in the recovery and explain as to who was responsible for being so slow and tardy in the recovery proceedings by which the amount has been virtually lost.
9. The court secured the presence of Ex Directors after issuing summons, bailable warrants and then non-bailable warrants. They allege that they lost their factory on account of fire, and that the foreign buyers in Libia and Russia did not pay for the deliveries. They have not substantiated their story. They did not insure the factory mortgaged to financial institutions and virtually did nothing to recover the dues from foreign buyers. They have not annexed any document showing any correspondence with foreign buyer, or their reply to the Reserve Bank of India by which they were asked to account for the foreign currency.
10. On the request of Shri Ravi Kant, the court is giving a last opportunity to the Ex Directors to give a true and correct accounts of the affairs and to make full disclosure of assets and liabilities of the company failing which the court shall be constrained to draw charges of misfeasance, cancel their bail and also direct the action to be taken for misappropriation of foreign exchange. List on 10.10.2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.