IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, .fWO THOIJSAND AND NINETEEN : PRESENI': THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM sTAI COMPANY APPLICATION No. 732 OF 2002 IN COMPANY PETITION No. 84 OF 1997 IN THE MAT'fER OF COMPANIES ACT, I956 AND IN THE MATTER OF N4/S. ASIA PACIFIC INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED (In Liqn.) Between: Ivl/s. Asia Pacific Investment Trust Limited (ln. Liqn), -Represented by the Official Liquidator, High Court ofAndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Applicant AND 1. ]vVs. Gounders Rice Exponers Private Limited, No.6, Haddows 1" Street, Nungambakkam, Madras-600 034. 2. Sri C. Ivluthuswamuy, S/o. Sri N. Chinasamy, 29A, Cathedral Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-600 034. . . . Respondents Company Application under Section 446 (2) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and l1 (b) ofthe Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying that the High Court may be pleased to; i) ii) Direct the respondents herein jointly and severally to pay to the applicant herein, a sum of Rs. 65,72,247.91 Ps. alcngwith interest @ l8% P.A. with effect from 19-08-1998 till the date ofrealization; Order the cost olthis application do come out ofthe assets of the company; Counssl lbr thc Petitioner SRI M.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 SI{I \I.\"S. SLITESH KU]\I.,I.It . And Whereas the High Court upon perusing the applicalion and the complaint filed therein, made the following; ORDER: "Respondent No.1 Conrpany-in-liquidation has sold some machinery to the Company at Chennai. The amount which is said to be due is about Rs.65,00,000/-. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No,2, who is the former Director of respondent No.1 and who is sought to be prosecutcd, catcgorically asscrted that respondent No.l itself came to be wound up by thc Honourable Madras High Court vide order, dated 14.06.1997 in C.P.No.l00 of 1996; that hc signed the documents only in the capacity of Director of respondent No.l Company and he has no personal liability and that hc has not executed any promissory note in his individual capacity. In vierv . of the above facts, the Official Liquidator shall ascertain whether respondent No.l had any assets and any surplus moncy and whether the borrorvings from respondent No.l are reflected in its accounts filed before the Madras High Court, by addressing a letter to the Official Liquidator at Chennai, and file a report before this Court by the next date of hearing. Post on 19.03.2019," //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.GANGADHARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER (Nagole), To I 2 3 4 The Official Liquidator, Corporate Bhavan, I't Floor, Bandlaguda Thauiannaram. Hayathnagar (BY RPAD) One CC to Sri M.Anil Kumar, counsel for Official Liquidator (OPUC) One CC to Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) One spare copy. (L- HIGH COURT CKII.J DATE: 26-02-2019 NOTE: LIST ON l9-0-i-2019 ORDER coMP.A. NO.732 0F 2002 IN c.P. NO.84 C)F r997 DIRECTION c 2 + + H oIj (