( 1 ) HEARD Shri Subodh Kumar, Additional standing counsel appearing for petitioner. No one appears for respondent-company. ( 2 ) THIS company petition has been filed by the Registrar of Companies, U. P. and Uttaranchal at kanpur under Section 433 (f) read with Section 439 (e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) to wind up respondent-company after issuing statutory notice under Section 433 (f) read with section 439 (6) and after getting sanction to file winding up petition under Section 439 (6) vide order dated 14-9-2001 given by Regional Manager (NR), Camp Office, New Delhi, Department of Company Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice and Company Affairs Government of India in exercise of delegated power under the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 439. ( 3 ) PETITIONER has verified that during the investigation made by Central Bureau of Investigation, in the matter of default in making payment to various investors by Century Consultant Ltd. , a report was submitted by C. B. I. dated 20-8-2001/23-8-2001 stating that the agency has registered criminal cases against Director of Century Consultant Ltd. having cheated several thousands of investors, and financial institutions through forgery, fraud and by corrupt/illegal business. Suits have been filed by Bank and financial institutions before Debt Recovery Tribunal. On the recommendation of the C. B. I. for taking action under Section 26 companies wherein Directors of century Consultant/cyberspace Scam or their employees are involved, the Central Government examined the matter and after giving statutory notice, sanction was given to the Registrar of the companies to file this winding up petition. ( 4 ) THE company petition was directed to be advertised under Rule 24 of the Companies (Court)Rules, 1959 and that the Official Liquidator was appointed provisional liquidator on 24-11-2001. The office reports that the summons sent have returned back with the report that there is no firm on the address. Copies of hindustan Times (English) and dainik Jagran (Hindi) in which notices have been published as well as Official Gazette dated 9-3-2002 in which the notice has been published have been filed on record. The office reports that the summons sent have returned back with the report that there is no firm on the address. Copies of hindustan Times (English) and dainik Jagran (Hindi) in which notices have been published as well as Official Gazette dated 9-3-2002 in which the notice has been published have been filed on record. ( 5 ) THE Official Liquidator vide his report No. 165 of 2001 has reported that when his staff reached the registered office of the company, at B-2043, Indira Nagar, Lucknow, it was found that no such company is existing at the said address the learned counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad mathur has informed that since it closed its business and vacated the office which was taken on rent two years ago. Gomati Nagar, Lucknow of the company was also found to be quashed. A copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company collected from R. P. Tiwari and company auditor has been enclosed as Annexure 2 which does not show any improvement of the financial condition of the company. ( 6 ) IT is found from the last valuation as on 31-3-2001 shows that the company has issued, subscribed and paid up capital of Rs. 10,000, reserves and surplus Rs. 4,331, unsecured loan from Directors Rs. 15,000, as against this, it has no fixed assets and net current assets of Rs. 3,408 and miscellaneous expenditure (not written off) of Rs. 25,922. ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid facts, the investigation made by CBI and notices given by Department of company Affairs through Director (NR), the notices published to which no objection has been filed, and, upon hearing Shri Subodh Kumar for Registrar of Companies, U. P. and Uttaranchal, kanpur, the petitioner, I am satisfied that respondent-company is liable to be wound up under section 433 (b), (c) and (f ). ( 8 ) THE company petition is, accordingly, allowed, and the respondent-company is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator who was appointed as the provisional liquidator of the respondent-company vide order of this Court dated 24-11-2001, is appointed as liquidator of the company under 439 (e ). .