CP No. 137 of 2006 . ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.P. 137 of 2006. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th November, 2011. M/s Curefast Remedies Ltd. [in liquidation] Petitioner. Versus V.K.Gupta & Ors. Respondents. Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate for the OL. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 8. Mr. Harpriya Khanika, Advocate, for Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for Auction Purchaser. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CP Nos. 136 and 137 of 2006 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these cases. The facts have been extracted from CP No. 137 of 2006. [2]. This complaint under Section 454[5] of the Companies Act, 1956 [here-in-after referred to as the 'Act'] is at the instance of the Official Liquidator, who has, inter-alia, alleged that the respondents, who are Ex.-Directors/Managing Director and/or were in the helm of affairs of the Company-in-liquidation being its senior officers have failed to comply with the provisions of Section 454[1] and [2] of the Act and have not submitted the complete statement of affairs. The Official Liquidator further alleges that Statement of Affairs CP No. 137 of 2006 . ::-2-:: have not been filed till now though the winding-up order was passed on 07.10.2004 and the respondents were required to furnish such documents within a period of 21 days of the date of winding-up order. [3]. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavits claiming that when they went at the site on 14.12.2009 it was found that the room where the 'records' were kept and which was under the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator, had been demolished and no records were available. The respondents thus for the said reason 'beyond their control' could not submit the requisite information. [4] Respondent No. 6 has unfortunately expired during the pendency of these proceedings. [5]. Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 submit during the course of hearing that no other information or record is available with them and they are not in a position to furnish any additional information as demanded by the Official Liquidator. [6]. Section 454[1] obligates filing of a Statement as to affairs of the Company in the prescribed form duly verified on affidavit containing the following informations:- “[a] the assets of the Company, stating separately the cash balance in hand and at the bank, if any, and the negotiable securities, if any, held by the company; [b] its bets and liabilities; [c] the names, residences and occupations of its creditors, stating separately the amount of secured and unsecured debts; and in the case of secured debts, particulars of the securities given, whether by the company or an officer thereof, their value and the dates on which they were given; [d] the debts due to the company and the names, CP No. 137 of 2006 . ::-3-:: residences and the occupations of the persons from whom they are due and the amount likely to be released on account thereof; [e] such further or other information as may be prescribed, or as the Official Liquidator may require”. [7]. Sub-section [2] of Section 454 provides that the afore- stated statement in relation to the affairs of the Company be verified by one or more of the persons who were at the relevant date the Directors and/or Manager, Secretary or other Chief Officer of the Company. [8] It does not appear to sense and is apparently far from convincing that the respondents left the records comprising documents in an abandoned, unsafe and secluded room or that which was allegedly under the lock and seal of the Official Liquidator, it was found demolished without the records. The respondents being the Directors of the Company were responsible and had deemed knowledge of their obligation to supply the requisite Statement of Affairs within 21 days of passing of the winding-up order dated 7.10.2004 . [9]. The legal status enjoyed upon by them as the Managing or other Directors of the Company etc. puts them under a legal obligation to submit the Statement of Affairs in the prescribed form and within the stipulated period, i.e., 21 days from the date of passing of the winding-up order as provided under Section 454[3]. [10]. As the facts speak for themselves, the respondents have failed to file complete statement of affairs within the stipulated period or belatedly though the winding-up order was passed way back on 7.10.2004. In the light of these admitted and acknowledged facts, no CP No. 137 of 2006 . ::-4-:: fact finding trial in terms of Section 454[5] of the Act needs to be held as there can be no escape but to conclusively hold that the respondents, without any reasonable excuse, have defaulted in complying with the aforementioned statutory requirement. [11]. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents has highlighted their individual mitigating circumstances including the age or poor health conditions of some of them and the fact that the 6th respondent has already passed away. [12]. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the mitigating circumstances highlighted by learned counsel for the respondents in the context of the nature of punishment to be imposed on them. In my considered view, the efforts made by the respondents, in filing the Statement of Affairs by collecting whatever information they could secure, after the alleged incidence when the records were 'lost', though not fully convincing but it does absolve them from the harsh punishment of 'imprisonment'. However, it can not be over-looked that the information furnished by them is incomplete, besides the delay of more than seven years. [13]. Keeping in view the legislative guidelines behind imposition of fine which can be extend up to `1000/- per day during which the default continues and also taking into consideration the fact that most of the petitioners are at the fag end of their lives, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of imposition of fine. [14]. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that respondents No. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 shall deposit a sum of `50,000/- each as fine within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, in the Common Pool Fund CP No. 137 of 2006 . ::-5-:: Account maintained by the Official Liquidator and upon deposit thereof, the proceedings under Section 454[1][a] shall stand dropped against them. However, in the event of any default, the OL shall be entitled to seek revival of these proceedings. [15]. Insofar as CP No. 136 of 2006 is concerned, the respondents No. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 are directed to file their respective affidavits before the Official Liquidator to the effect that they do not have any other document relating to management of Company during the tenure of their Directorship except the information already furnished and that as and when they are able to lay their hands, they shall pass on the said information to the Official Liquidator. [16]. Disposed of. Dasti. November 11, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE