Application Nos.376 and 377 of 2010 in I.P.No.87 of 2010 V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. A.No.376 of 2010 This application has been filed by applicant/petitioner/insolvent seeking direction to the Official Assignee to take appropriate steps to wind up the Company, namely M/s.Emerald Green Forest Ltd., having office at No.3, Anna Salai, V Floor, City Centre Plaza, Chennai, by necessary notifications. A.No.377 of 2010 2. This application has been filed by applicant/petitioner/ insolvent to deal with the complaint pending on the file of the investigation officer / the Inspector of Police, IX Team, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai  600 008 in disbursing the assets of the company namely, M/s.Emerald Green Forest Ltd. 3. Heard Mr.Thanjai PN Chezhian, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.S.Sitrarasu, learned Official Assignee. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant / insolvent would submit in his argument that the applicant's husband Mr.R.Soundararajan had incorporated a company in the name and style of M/s.Emerald Green Forest Ltd., having its Office at No.3, Anna Salai, V Floor, City Centre Plaza, Chennai and applicant's husband was one among the other directors and himself designated as Executive Managing Director and it was registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956. He would further submit that the applicant's husband suddenly died on 03.07.2005 leaving the applicant and two minor children as his heirs and the applicant is entitled to 1/3rd share of the assets available in the said Company. He would further submit in his argument that in the said Company, the applicant holds considerable shares in her name and therefore, the Company may be sought to be declared as wound up through Company Court, since the applicant herself was adjudicated as insolvent. He would further submit that the assets and liabilities of the applicant / insolvent are vested with the Official Assignee and therefore, the said assets of the applicant in the Company may be taken note of and the Official Assignee may be directed to approach the Company Court for winding up of the Company. He would also submit that the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, has registered First Information Report against the said Company and other directors along with the applicant in Crime No.18 of 2009 and it is under investigation. He would also submit that the applicant had also obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.15417 of 2010 on 13.07.2010. The order of adjudication was passed by this Court on 08.07.2010. But the said complaint is still pending investigation against the applicant. He would, therefore, request the Court to direct the Official Assignee to take appropriate steps, for dropping the complaint against the applicant, since she was adjudicated as insolvent. He would, therefore, request the Court to order both the applications. 5. The learned Official Assignee would submit in his argument that no doubt, the applicant was declared as insolvent on 08.07.2010 by the order of this Court and the assets and liabilities vests with the Official Assignee. He would further submit that even according to the submission of the applicant, the applicant had inherited 1/3rd share left by her husband and the other directors of the Company, who hold shares of the Company, are also the owners of the said Company and the applicant alone is not the owner of the Company and hence, at best, the shares held by the applicant can be traced and be distributed among the creditors of the applicant. The request of the applicant to take steps before the Company Court for winding up of the said Company is not at all warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He would also submit that the Criminal complaint launched against the applicant will be looked into and whatever necessary would be done on behalf of the insolvent in accordance with law. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss both the applications as the prayers sought for by the applicant in both the applications are not germane. 6. I have considered the submissions with anxious thoughts. 7. It is an admitted case of the applicant / insolvent herself that the shares held by her husband as Director of the Company, namely, M/s.Emerald Green Forest Ltd., was devolved upon the insolvent and her two minor children. Therefore, the applicant / insolvent would be entitled only to 1/3rd share of her husband. There is no particulars given in the affidavit or any serial numbers furnished in any schedule attached to the Judge's summons to show the proprietary nature of the applicant with the said shares. It is admitted that certain shares were held by the applicant / insolvent in the said Company, devolved on her due to the death of her husband and those shares could alone be taken by the Official Assignee for distributing the dividends to the creditors on rateable basis. Merely because the applicant / insolvent has held the shares in the said Company, he could not seek for winding up of the said Company. 8. However, I could see some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant / insolvent in respect of the prayer made in the application in A.No.377 of 2010. On a careful perusal of the First Information Report registered in Crime No. 18 of 2009 with the Inspector of Police, IX Team, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai -8, it is seen that the insolvent was incriminated as 3rd accused. The complaint was given against her and she also obtained anticipatory bail from the Court concerned. Now, the duty cast upon the learned Official Assignee would be to follow the complaint and to do the needful on behalf of the applicant / insolvent, to get the beneficial disposal of the said case. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Application in A.No.377 of 2010 is ordered and A.No.376 of 2010 is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Mra 03.08.2011 Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Note : Issue order copy on 08.08.2011 V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. Mra Application Nos.376 and 377 of 2010 in I.P.No.87 of 2010 03.08.2011