THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.604 of 2011 Date:04th August, 2011 Between: M/s.Grand Atlantic Telecom Ltd. (in liquidation), rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Applicant and M/s.Hero Exports, a partnership firm having its Registered office at Hero Nagar, G.T.Road, Ludhiana, Punjab, rep. by its Senior Vice President and Authorised Representative Sri Ravi Kishore. …Respondent **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.604 of 2011 ORDER: This Company Application has been filed by the Official Liquidator representing M/s.Grand Atlantic Telecom Ltd. (in liquidation) under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rules 281, 282 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, ‘the Rules’) seeking an order for dissolution of the applicant Company. 2. This Court by order, dated 18.08.2006, passed in Company Petition No.117 of 2005 directing for winding up of M/s.Grand Atlantic Telecom Ltd. and appointed the Official Liquidator attached to this Court as its liquidator under Section 449 of the Act. The Official Liquidator filed Company Application No.1087 of 2007 under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1959, r/w. Section 454(5) & (5A) of the Act and Company Application No.1570 of 2007 under Section 538(1)(b)&[c] of the Act r/w. Rule 9 of the Rules, seeking various reliefs. This Court ordered summons to the accused- Rebala Sudhakar Reddy. Thereafter, NBW also came to be issued against him. NBW remained un-executed. The Commissioner of Police has been directed to submit the report with regard to execution of the NBW. The Police sent ‘Look Out’ notices to various police stations and also published the photograph of Rebala Sudhakar Reddy to know his whereabouts. After taking every effort to execute the NBW; Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station filed a report before this Court on 09.07.2008. Taking into consideration of the report, the Company Applications being C.A.Nos.1087 and 1570 of 2007 came to be closed on 03.06.2009. Relevant portion of the common order, reads as hereunder: “This Court ordered summons to the accused which could not be served. Therefore, this Court ordered non-bailable warrants against him. In spite of the efforts made by P.S., Madhapur, the warrants could not be executed. Therefore, by an order dated 15.04.2009, this Court directed the Official Liquidator to publish the proclamation as required under Section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC, for brevity) and publish the same in Vartha (Telugu daily) newspaper. In obedience to the orders of the Court referred to hereinabove, the Official Liquidator has published proclamation requiring the respondent’s attendance in Vaartha (Telugu daily) newspaper on 02.05.2009. A copy of the same is being produced before this Court. In spite of the same, the accused is absent. There is no representation on his behalf. As the accused could not be served with warrants in spite of publication of the proclamation, no purpose would be served keeping these applications pending, therefore, they are to be closed. This Court, however, suspects that respondent knowing fully well about the winding up proceedings and the proceedings taken up by the Official Liquidator under Section 454 of the Act, is avoiding the process of the Court and ignoring the fundamental duty under Article 51A(a) of Constitution of India and also violated various provisions of CPC. The person who has no respect to law is not fit to be a Director of any Company. Therefore, the Court is of considered opinion that the respondent shall not, without leave of this Court, continue or be a Director of any Company registered/incorporated in India. This presumption shall be enforced by the Registrars of Companies (ROCs) in any of the States in Union of India with reference to the companies registered or incorporated within their respective jurisdictions. A copy of this order shall be communicated to third ROCs in all the States forthwith directing them to take necessary action against the respondent if he happens to be Director of any Company in India. These two applications are accordingly closed with above observations and directions to ROCs.” 3. This application has been moved by the Official Liquidator to order for dissolution of the Company in liquidation and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 14.06.2011. The applicant filed memo of proof of service along with the letter of Chief Post Master, Hyderabad General Post Office, to the effect that the registered letter has ben served on the addressee on 20.06.2011. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator representing the applicant Company and perused the material brought on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator representing the applicant Company submits that every effort has been made to get the statement of affairs of the applicant Company, but the efforts made by the Official Liquidator proved to be futile. Neither the petitioning creditor nor the persons in-charge of the applicant Company furnished the statement of affairs of the applicant company. 7. The efforts made by the Official Liquidator to know the statement of affairs of the Company (in liquidation) by taking out prosecution against the sole director viz., Rebala Sudhakar Reddy proved to be futile. There is no property of the Company (in liquidation) which is required to be administered by the Official Liquidator. In these circumstances, the Company (in liquidation) is ordered to be dissolved. The action of the Official Liquidator in appointing M/s.Padmanabha Rao & Co., Chartered Accountants, and the fees for auditing of the Company (in liquidation) is approved. Half yearly accounts for the periods ending 30.09.2010 to 31.03.2011 and from 01.04.2011 to 30.05.2011 have been taken on record. The Official Liquidator is permitted to return the balance lying to the credit of the Company (in liquidation) to the petitioner in winding up petition, who had remitted the liquidation expenses after deducting the auditors’ fee and liquidation expenses. Filing of final accounts of the Company (in liquidation) is dispensed with in view of the insignificant transactions. 8. Accordingly, the Company Application is ordered. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:4th August, 2011. Cs/Smr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Company Application No.604 of 2011 Date:04th August, 2011