ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.— The company in liquidation represented by the Official Liquidator has presented this petition invoking section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for short 'the Act', for the following reliefs: (a) to summon the respondents 1 to 3 for the purpose of examination with regard to the matter specified therein. (b) Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount of Rs. 26,83,000 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. (c) Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount Rs. 1,61,605 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. (d) Direct the ex-directors to make good the said amount of Rs. 24,222 to the Official Liquidator together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. with effect from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999 till the date of payment. (e) To order that the respondents do pay the costs of and incidental to this application. (f) To order that liberty be reserved to the applicant/Official Liquidator to file additional points of claim after submitting investigation report by the chartered accountant appointed by this Hon'ble Court. (g) To pass such other Order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The respondents 1 and 2, Ex-directors of the company-in-liquidation when served with the notice of this application, have engaged counsel, while the 3rd respondent though served remained absent and was placed ex parte by order dated 10-8-2007. The application is not opposed by filing statement of objections of respondents 1 and 2. The applicant examined one witness as PW-1 and marked three documents as Ex.P1 to P3, and when tendered for cross-examination, as there was no representation, cross-examination was taken as nil and the witnesses discharged. The respondents have not chosen to examine witness nor produce documents. 3. It is stated that the applicant-company was ordered to be wound up on 26-2-1999 in COP 21/1998. The respondents have not chosen to examine witness nor produce documents. 3. It is stated that the applicant-company was ordered to be wound up on 26-2-1999 in COP 21/1998. That company, it is stated carried on business of manufacture, production, purchase, sale, import, of all type of storage of all kinds of battery plates, cells, dry batteries, etc., and the balance sheet made up to 31-3-1998 disclosed the Authorised share capital of Rs. 20 lakhs, while subscribed, paid-up capital Rs. 7,50,000. Respondents were the directors of the company as on the date of winding up order. The factory, land and building, plant and machinery of the applicant located at Doddaballapura were under the custody M/s. Karnataka State Financial Corporation. The applicant filed CA No. 1149/1999 under Section 454(5A) of the Act against the ex-directors of the company-in-liquidation for not filing statement of affairs. One of the ex-directors, 1st respondent herein filed statement of affairs, since defective, notices were issued to the ex-directors for rectification and that application is said to be pending disposal. 4. This Court having directed the Official Liquidator to engage the services of M/s. K.S. Ramprasad and Company to investigate into the affairs of the company, the report when not received within time limited, i.e., 26-2-2004, hence, the application was presented reserving liberty to file additional grounds and claims of misfeasance, if any committed by the respondents. 5. The first claim relates to Rs. 26,83,000 being the difference in the value of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings valued at Rs. 60,15,000 in the statement of affairs filed by the 1st respondent, while the very same assets are valued at Rs. 33,32,000 by M/s. KSFC. The second claim for Rs. 1,61,605 is based upon the entries in the audited balance sheet as on 31-3-1998 against the head of account loans and advances. The respondents having failed to realise the said sum from persons who had availed loans and advances, were liable to make good the same with interest at 18 per cent p.a. The third claim for Rs. 6,096 and 18, 126 against the head of account cash in hand and cash at Bank respectively, is based upon the entries in the audited balance sheet as on 31-3-1998. 6,096 and 18, 126 against the head of account cash in hand and cash at Bank respectively, is based upon the entries in the audited balance sheet as on 31-3-1998. The ex-directors having failed to remit the amount and furnish the bank particulars, hence, the claim together with interest at 18 per cent p.a. with effect from 26-2-1999 up to the date of filing the application. In all, the applicant claims Rs. 28,68,827 towards misfeasance and interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. from the date of winding up. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant reiterates the averments set out in the application as well as the affidavit by way of evidence of PW-1. Learned Counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents submits that he has no instructions in the matter, which is the very same submission as recorded in the order sheet dated 21-3-2009. 7. The following questions arise for decision making: (i) Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are liable to make good Rs. 26,83,000 with interest at 18 per cent p.a. with effect from 26-2-1999 being the difference of value declared in statement of affairs and the valuation by M/s. KSFC on 19-9-2002 in respect of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, etc.? (ii) Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are liable to pay Rs. 1,61,605 with interest at 18 per cent p.a. from 26-2-1999 as disclosed in the head of account, loan and advances in the audited balance sheet, made up to 31-3-1998 which was not realised? (iii) Whether the applicant proves that the respondents are due and payable Rs. 6,096 and Rs. 18,126 under the head of account, cash in hand and cash at Bank as disclosed in the audited balance sheet made up to 31-3-1998 together with interest at 18 per cent from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999? 8. Section 543 of the Act empowers the Court to assess damages against delinquent directors. 6,096 and Rs. 18,126 under the head of account, cash in hand and cash at Bank as disclosed in the audited balance sheet made up to 31-3-1998 together with interest at 18 per cent from the date of winding up order, i.e., 26-2-1999? 8. Section 543 of the Act empowers the Court to assess damages against delinquent directors. Sub-section (1) invests a jurisdiction in the Court to examine as to whether in the course of winding up of a company, any person who has taken part in the promotion for formation of the company or any past or present director, manager, liquidator or officer of the company: (a) had misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company; (b) is guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company and in that regard may examine the conduct of persons, director, manager and compel him to repay or restore the property or any part thereof respectively, with interest at the rate as this Court thinks just. Sub-section (2) provides the period of limitation of five years beyond the date of the order for winding up for filing an application under Sub-section (1). 9. In the instant case, the company when wound up by Order dated 26-2-1999 in COP No. 21/1998, the application filed on 23-2-2004 is within the period stipulated in Sub-section (2) of Section 543 of the Act. Hence, the application is in time. 10. Learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that the estimated value of Rs. 60,15,000 of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, as set out in the statement of affairs, Ex.P1 submitted by the 1st respondent is far in excess of the valuation of Rs. 33,32,000 of the very same fixed assets by M/s. KSFC. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, there is difference of Rs. 26,83,000 between the value declared in the statement of affairs and the valuation by KSFC and, therefore, the ex-directors, the respondents herein are liable to pay the amount with interest at 18 per cent p.a. To a question of this Court as to how such difference of money could constitute misapplication or retention or accountable for money or property of the company or to hold the respondents guilty of misfeasance or breach of trust. Learned Counsel is unable to answer. 11. Learned Counsel is unable to answer. 11. A bare reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 543 of the Act does not indicate that the "estimated value" of the fixed assets, plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, as set out in the statement of affairs, when in excess of the valuation made by M/s. KSFC, that by itself and nothing more, it cannot be said that the ex-directors had misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company so as to fall within Sub-section (1) of Section 543 of the Act. The difference in value, noticed supra, per se cannot be said that the respondent-ex-directors are guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company. In that view of the matter, the first claim for recovery of Rs. 26,83,000 being the difference of value together with interest at 18 per cent stands rejected. 12. It is no doubt true that in the balance sheet Ex.P3 duly signed by 1st respondent Managing Director of the company as on 31-3-1993 discloses Rs. 1,61,605 towards loans and advances as detailed in Schedule-I. So also under the head of account cash in hand and Bank discloses Rs. 24,222 which the ex-directors, respondents herein have failed, in the first place, to deposit with the Official Liquidator and in the second, make available necessary material particulars of the Bank so as to make good the said sum. Apparently, this claim is not opposed by filing statement of objections or tendering evidence of the respondents. In fact, learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no instructions. In that view of the matter, it cannot but be said that the respondents are guilty of misapplication, retention and become liable and accountable for money of the applicant-company. 13. Having regard to the fact that the amounts due to the company are retained by the ex-directors, I think it appropriate to levy interest at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. on the said sum as against the claim for interest at the rate of 18 per cent p.a. 14. In the result, the application is allowed in part. The respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay Rs. 1,85,827 with interest at 12 per cent with effect from 22-6-1999 up to the date of payment.