HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.344 of 2011 ORDER: This application has been taken out by the Official Liquidator representing M/s. Sramika Agro Farms (P) Ltd., (in liquidation) under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rules 281 to 283 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short ‘the Rules’). M/s. Sramika Agro Farms (P) Ltd., was directed to be wound up on an application moved by it under Section 433(C)(E) and (F), 434 and 439 of the Act vide order dated 07.12.1999 passed in C.P.No.214 of 1998. The Official Liquidator came to be appointed as Liquidator of the company. The Official Liquidator filed C.A.478 of 2000 under Section 454(5) and (5A) of the Act read with Rule 125 and 132 of the Rules with a prayer to summon the accused-Shai Sunny Ahemed and Sri Indla Satya Raju and punish them under sub-section 5 and 5A of Section 454 of the Act for non compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) (2) and (3) of the said section. The said application came to be ordered finding Sri Indla Satya Raju guilty and accordingly he came to be sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The order passed in C.A.No.478 of 2000 came to be challenged in O.S.A.Nos.28 of 2001 and 49 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order by judgment dated 09.07.2002. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “In the instant case, admittedly, no material is placed before the learned Company Judge to discharge the burden that the appellants have no reasonable excuse in committing the default. A person cannot be prosecuted and convicted under sub- section (5A) merely for the reason that he committed default in complying with any of the requirements of section 454. In addition to establishing the default, the prosecution is required to establish that the person without reasonable excuse has committed such default in complying with any of the requirements of section 454. The second element is completely missing in the instant case for want of proof. The prosecution has utterly failed to lay any evidence to establish that fact. On that short ground, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders. However, this order of ours shall not preclude the learned Company Judge from taking de novo steps in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (5A) of Section 454 of the Act. No costs.” This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator contending that the company in liquidation has no assets and therefore the company is liable to be dissolved. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and also order dated 07.12.1999 passed in C.P.No.214 of 1998. It is observed in the winding up order that the company has no assets in its hands. Therefore, I do not see any impediment in considering the prayer sought for by the Official Liquidator. Accordingly, the Company Application is ordered dissolving M/s. Sramika Agro Farm Private Limited (in liquidation). ______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 13th April, 2011 VJL