JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The applicant-Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. has preferred the present Judge's Summons inter alia praying that the respondents and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs. 2,56,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment or realization. It is also prayed that respondent No.1 and each of its Director including respondent Nos. 2 to 5 be punished with fine as provided in sub-section 1(E) of Section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as under Rule 11 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975. 2. Since all these applications are interconnected and raise similar issues, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Company Application No.403 of 2010 are recorded in this judgment. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Roshan M. Desai for the applicant Official Liquidator, learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala with learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for respondent No.1, learned advocate Ms. Paurami B. Sheth for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned advocate Mr. Sureshkumar Ravi for respondent No.4 and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for respondent No. 5. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the Official Liquidator mainly submitted that Alps BPO Services Ltd. came into financial difficulties and was unable to pay its debts and therefore one of the creditors of the company preferred a petition being Company Petition No.173 of 2007 for winding up of the said company. This Court passed an order on 10.12.2009 by which the aforesaid company came to be wound up and Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as Liquidator of the said company with a direction to take charge of the assets of the company in liquidation. The Official Liquidator therefore deputed his representative to the office of Registrar of Companies for taking inspection of records of the said company. At the time of taking inspection, it was observed that the company was having Regd. Office at 6, Surya Complex, Swastik Cross Road, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. The Liquidator thereafter issued notice dated 13th January 2010 to the Director of the company under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for the purpose of recording statement regarding affairs of company in liquidation. Office at 6, Surya Complex, Swastik Cross Road, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. The Liquidator thereafter issued notice dated 13th January 2010 to the Director of the company under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for the purpose of recording statement regarding affairs of company in liquidation. Managing Director of the said company i.e. the present respondent No.2 gave his statement. Statement of affairs was submitted on 7th May 2010. It is the case of the Official Liquidator in the affidavit filed along with the Judge's Summons that the said statement of affairs was sent to the concerned Chartered Accountant for verification and scrutinisation and till filing of the Judge's Summons the concerned Chartered Accountant has not given his report. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Desai thereafter submitted that the Board of Directors of company in liquidation passed resolution at their meeting held on 6th April 1999 that unutilized fund may be invested with various entities as Inter Corporate Deposit so that maximum amount may not exceed Rs.40 crores. Learned advocate referred to the said resolution which is produced at Annexure-A with the compilation. Respondent No.2 submitted a list of companies in which Inter Corporate Deposit was made by his communication dated 7th May 2010. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has referred to and relied upon the following application-wise prayers made in a tabular format: Sr. No. Company Application No. Respondent Prayer 1. 403 of 2010 1. Aquarian Exim Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.2,56,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 2. 404 of 2010 1. Trans Financial Resources Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.69,75,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 3. 405 of 2010 1. Monila Fintrade Pvt Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. 3. 405 of 2010 1. Monila Fintrade Pvt Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.42,71,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 4. 406 of 2010 1. Trans Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 5. 407 of 2010 1. Trans Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.1,21,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 6. 408 of 2010 1. Arrow Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.13,21,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 7. 409 of 2010 1. Trans Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.10,66,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 8. 410 of 2010 1. Tanaya Securities Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. 8. 410 of 2010 1. Tanaya Securities Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.5,11,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 9. 411 of 2010 1. Kajol Impex Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S.Shah Respondent and each of them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.1,21,00,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 10. 412 of 2010 1. Trans Techno Foods Respondent and each of Ltd. 2. Shri Mukesh Patel 3. Smt. Bela M. Patel 4. Shri Sheshadri S. Asokan 5. Shri Manipal S. Shah them be directed to pay to the Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. a sum of Rs.41,16,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% P.A. From the date of deposit till payment or realization. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Desai further submitted that when the statement of affairs and the list given by respondent No.2 were verified, it was revealed that an amount of Rs.2,56,00,000/- was deposited with respondent No.1 company as on 14.02.2001. He further pointed out that company in liquidation vide its communication dated 04.03.2002 informed respondent No.1 that they have dues of Rs.2,56,00,000/- to the company in liquidation since 2001 and requested to clear the said outstanding at the earliest to avoid legal action. Reminders were sent to respondent No.1 by the company in liquidation from time to time. Learned advocate Mr. Desai pointed out that respondent No.2 while giving his statement recorded under Rule 130 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, admitted that no steps were taken by the company in liquidation to recover the amount from the respondent No.1. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the balancesheet of the company in liquidation for the year ended on 31st March 2008. In the Auditor's report of Suresh R. Shah Associates, in note No.13 (page 33), the amount of Rs.38,95,64,425/- P.Y. is shown which is relating to interest free loans and advances to corporate. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the balancesheet of the company in liquidation for the year ended on 31st March 2008. In the Auditor's report of Suresh R. Shah Associates, in note No.13 (page 33), the amount of Rs.38,95,64,425/- P.Y. is shown which is relating to interest free loans and advances to corporate. In the balance-sheet, the amount of Rs.39,58,00,170/- is shown against Current Assets Loans and advances. Unsecured loan amount of Inter Corporate Deposit shown at Rs.1,44,500/-. Thus, it is the case of the Official Liquidator that the said amount exceeds Rs.40 crores and therefore this was in violation of authority given by the Board as per resolution dated 6th April 1999. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Desai thereafter referred to item Nos.(iv) and (v) to the annexure of the Auditor's Report. Learned advocate further submitted that from the balance-sheet and Auditor's note it is clear that respondent No.2 has in collusion and connivance with respondent No.1 might have taken monetary benefit out of the transaction. The approach of respondent No.2 to give interest free loans to various companies is not of a businessman. No security was taken against the loan advanced to the said companies and therefore prima facie the transaction appears to be not in the benefit of the company in liquidation. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has not handed over register referred to by the Auditor which is required to be maintained under Section 301 of the Companies Act, 1956. Even the file in which the original Fixed Deposits have been kept is also not handed over to the Liquidator. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that the respondent No.2 must have obtained the financial benefit out of transaction of giving Inter Corporate Deposit to the respondent company. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the applicant thereafter placed reliance upon the provisions contained in Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. 9. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the Liquidator in course of winding up is not required to file suits for recovery of properties of the company in liquidation. This Section permits High Court to initiate proceedings straight way as if they were proceedings of the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these applications as suit and pass the decree in favour of company in liquidation. He, therefore, submitted that relief prayed for in the Judge's Summons be granted. This Section permits High Court to initiate proceedings straight way as if they were proceedings of the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these applications as suit and pass the decree in favour of company in liquidation. He, therefore, submitted that relief prayed for in the Judge's Summons be granted. 10. With regard to the period of limitation, learned advocate Mr. Desai for the applicant submitted that as per Section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956 certain time in computing the periods of limitation is excluded. Section 458A of the Companies Act reads as under: "458A. 1 Exclusion of certain time in computing periods of limitation.- Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application in the name and on behalf of a company which is being wound up by the Tribunal, the period from the date of commencement of the winding up of the company to the date on which the winding up order is made (both inclusive) and a period of one year immediately following the date of the winding up order shall be excluded." 11. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the applicant thereafter placed reliance upon the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 441 of the Companies Act, 1956, which provides as under: "441. Commencement of winding up by Tribunal.- (1).... (2) In any other case, the winding up of a company by the Tribunal shall be deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up." 12. Learned advocate Mr. Desai for the applicant after referring to the aforesaid provisions of law submitted that in the present case the winding up petition was presented and registered on 07.09.2007 and the order of winding up was passed on 10.12.2009 and therefore period from 07.09.2007 to 10.12.2009 is required to be excluded from calculation of limitation period. He, therefore, submitted that this application is filed within the period of limitation. 13. Learned counsel further contended that statement in the balance-sheet submitted as per the statutory requirements acknowledging a debt due is sufficient under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He, therefore, submitted that the present proceedings are initiated within the period of limitation. 14. Learned advocate Mr. 13. Learned counsel further contended that statement in the balance-sheet submitted as per the statutory requirements acknowledging a debt due is sufficient under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He, therefore, submitted that the present proceedings are initiated within the period of limitation. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Desai then contended that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - Directors of the company in liquidation have violated the provisions of Section 58A of the Companies Act, which provides that no company shall invite or allow any other person to invite or cause to be invited on its behalf any deposit unless an advertisement has been issued in prescribed form. Thereafter he relied upon Rule 3, Rule 4A and Rule 6 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that the respondents have violated the aforesaid rules and therefore the relief/s prayed for in this Judge's Summons be granted. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Desai thereafter contended that respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit in August 2011 wherein balance sheet of respondent No.1 company in Company Application Nos. 403 of 2010, 404 of 2010, 406 of 2010, 407 of 2010, 409 of 2010 to 412 of 2010 were produced. The balance sheet for the financial year 2009-2010 is also filed in Company Application Nos.404 of 2010, 407 of 2010 and 412 of 2010. The respondent No.1 has pointed out that in some of the matters respondent No.1 were defunct companies and notice under Section 560 of the Companies Act was issued. Learned advocate Mr. Desai submitted that the notice of defunct companies were issued after filing of company application to defeat the claim of the company in liquidation. He pointed out that learned advocate for respondent No.1 has submitted before this Court that the respondent No.1 company has no objection in cooperating and supplying the documents to the Official Liquidator. The learned advocate for the Official Liquidator therefore called for the information vide his letter dated 19.06.2014 addressed to learned advocate for the respondent No.1 company. However, it is the case of the applicant that the informations called for by him were not supplied/furnished to him. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Official Liquidator of Aryodaya Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Charansingh Dhupsingh & Others, reported in 125 Company Cases 765. However, it is the case of the applicant that the informations called for by him were not supplied/furnished to him. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Official Liquidator of Aryodaya Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Charansingh Dhupsingh & Others, reported in 125 Company Cases 765. 17. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Paurami B. Sheth appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the present application is misconceived. The applicant has suppressed the material facts and therefore this application is required to be dismissed. She pointed out that the respondent No.2 had filed Company Application No.244 of 2010 against the Official Liquidator for getting back possession of two properties being office premises as well as factory, which are not of the ownership of the company in liquidation. This Court directed the Official Liquidator to handover the possession of the office premises and therefore the Official Liquidator had handed over the possession to respondent No.2 on 29.09.2010. However, so far as handing over of the possession of the factory was concerned, it was the stand of the Official Liquidator that since the machineries were lying in the premises, the possession of the factory can be handed over only after the sale of the said machineries. This Court, thereafter, passed an order on 13.12.2010 directing the Official Liquidator to verify in respect of the ownership of the said applicant (present respondent No.2) within three months from the date of the order and to handover the possession upon the sale of the machineries of the company in liquidation. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth therefore submitted that the Official Liquidator has filed this application because the respondent No.2 has taken such action against the Official Liquidator. It is further contended that the Official Liquidator never raised the issue which is raised in this application at any point of time in the previous litigations. 18. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth, thereafter, contended that the Official Liquidator has not sought leave of this Court under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act of 1956 for filing the present application. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 is an ex-director of the company in liquidation and for liabilities and debt of the company in liquidation, liability upon the ex-director cannot be fastened. Hence, the application itself is misconceived. 19. Learned advocate Ms. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 is an ex-director of the company in liquidation and for liabilities and debt of the company in liquidation, liability upon the ex-director cannot be fastened. Hence, the application itself is misconceived. 19. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth, thereafter, would submit that Section 458A provides for exclusion of certain time in computing the period of limitation. However, the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case since the application itself is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act. 20. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth further contended that respondent No.2 had also filed a detailed affidavit with regard to loans and advances in form of the Inter Corporate Deposits amounting to Rs.38,95,64,425/- in the balance-sheet of the company as on 31st March 2007. As per the said details the Inter Corporate Deposits were outstanding since 2001. The said deposits were not received and could not be recovered by the company in liquidation since 2001. It is further pointed out that a sum of Rs.8,02,425/- could be recovered during the financial year 2007-2008. The affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in the said proceedings is annexed as Annexure-C with the compilation. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth referred to the contents of the said affidavit. 21. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth thereafter submitted that the resolution dated 06.04.1999 was passed by the Board of Directors with a view to deposit the excess/spare fund which was received out of the public issue of shares on preferential basis and not required immediately for development activity of the company. However, the said amount should not exceed Rs.40 crores. Accordingly, the company placed Inter Corporate Deposits for an amount of Rs.38,95,64,425/- with various companies. It is further submitted that the submission of learned advocate for the applicant that cheque of Rs.2,56,00,000/- was lying deposited with the respondent No.1 company as on 14.02.2001 is not correct. The company in liquidation has written letters from time to time to the respondent No.1 to make the payments. However, the same was not paid by the respondent No.1. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth further contended that though the applicant has made a reference about the balance-sheet of the company in liquidation for the year ending on 31.03.2008, the same is not produced on record by the Official Liquidator. However, the same was not paid by the respondent No.1. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth further contended that though the applicant has made a reference about the balance-sheet of the company in liquidation for the year ending on 31.03.2008, the same is not produced on record by the Official Liquidator. From Schedule 11 of the balance-sheet it is pointed out by leaned advocate that three items, i.e. other advance of Rs.33,791/-, security deposit of Rs.27,75,714/- and TDS of Rs.1,26,240/- i.e. total amount of Rs.29,35,745/-, are shown in the balance sheet. Learned advocate submitted that if the said figure is compared with the figure reflected in the balance-sheet of the year 2007-2008, the same are identical as there was no business of the company in liquidation. The corporate deposits are interest free deposits. She, therefore, contended that the submission of learned advocate for the Official Liquidator that the amount of Inter Corporate Deposits exceeds Rs.40 crores is not correct and therefore it is not in violation of the authority given by the Board as per the resolution dated 06.04.1999. 22. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth thereafter submitted that the respondent No.1 failed to repay the Inter Corporate Deposits since 2001 and therefore there was continuous follow up by the company in liquidation. However, this Court passed an order of winding up of the aforesaid company. Learned advocate further submitted that as per the panchnama drawn by the Official Liquidator of the documents, files, registers, etc. are in custody of the Official Liquidator and therefore the respondent No.2 is not having any custody of any of the papers pertaining to the company in liquidation. It is submitted that for Inter Corporate Deposits received from the respondent No.2 there is no requirement to issue any Fixed Deposit Receipts as required to be issued by the Nationalized Bank and such type of Inter Corporate Deposits are made and acknowledged by the letter only. 23. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth would contend that the application filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is not maintainable. However, the Official Liquidator can file an application under Section 543 of the Companies Act but in such cases the same can be filed only when the Director has misapplied, or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company or has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust. However, the Official Liquidator can file an application under Section 543 of the Companies Act but in such cases the same can be filed only when the Director has misapplied, or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company or has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust. Thus, as per the said Section, charges levelled against the Director should be specific and should not be vague and of general nature. Further, if the application is filed under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956, such application should contain a detailed narration of the specific acts of commission or omission on the part of the delinquent Director. In the present case, the applicant Official Liquidator has not alleged any specific act against the ex-directors of the company. It is not stated how the ex-directors are guilty of any misfeasance or how they have committed breach of trust or fraud. Even such allegations are required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Thus, when no allegations are levelled against the ex-directors nor details are given against the ex-directors, only on the basis of presumption and assumption the relief prayed for by the Official Liquidator may not be granted. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Official Liquidator v. Raghava Desikachar & Ors., reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2069. 24. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth thereafter has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Official Liquidator of Gujarat v. Kavasji Tehmures Modi, reported in (2003) 45 SCL 514 Guj. 25. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth has thereafter placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Official Liquidator of High Court of A.P., v. T.J.Swamy & Others, reported in AIR 1996 AP 226 . 26. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth thereafter has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Official Liquidator, Karnataka High Court v. R.C. Marathe & Others, reported in, 1980 (50) Company Cases 562. 27. Learned advocate Mr. 26. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth thereafter has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Official Liquidator, Karnataka High Court v. R.C. Marathe & Others, reported in, 1980 (50) Company Cases 562. 27. Learned advocate Mr. Sureshkumar Ravi for the respondent No.4 has submitted that respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company in liquidation and his name has been erroneously included as Director of the said company by respondent No.2 and subsequently by the Official Liquidator. Learned advocate further submitted that for the first time the respondent No.4 received a letter dated 22.12.2009 from the Registrar of Companies addressed to the company in liquidation and its Directors. In reply to that letter, the respondent No.4 informed the Registrar of Companies vide his letter dated 26.12.2009 that he had never been on the Board of Directors of the company in liquidation and he was only an employee of one of their promoters' private limited company. Learned advocate further submitted that respondent No.4 had not consented to act as Director of the company and he had not attended any Board Meeting and he had not signed any minutes or any document of the aforesaid company. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the letter dated 26.12.2009 written by the respondent No.4 to the Board of Directors of the company in liquidation and submitted that vide said letter respondent No.4 requested the Board of Directors of the company in liquidation to take requisite corrective action immediately since his name has been shown on the Board though he had not consented to act as a Director of the company. Learned advocate further referred to Article 31 of the Articles of Association of the company in liquidation and submitted that as per the said Article respondent No.4 is neither a subscriber nor first Director named in the Articles of Association of the company in liquidation and therefore respondent No.4 is not a Director of the company. 28. Learned advocate further referred to Article 31 of the Articles of Association of the company in liquidation and submitted that as per the said Article respondent No.4 is neither a subscriber nor first Director named in the Articles of Association of the company in liquidation and therefore respondent No.4 is not a Director of the company. 28. Learned advocate for respondent No.4 referred to and relied upon the provisions of Section 264 of the Companies Act, 1956 and submitted that as per said Section a person shall sing and file with the company his consent in writing to act as a Director, if appointed and respondent No.4 has not signed any consent pursuant to the provisions of Section 264 of the Companies Act, 1956 to become a Director of the applicant company. Learned advocate further submitted that when respondent No.4 has not signed the consent, how the company can file Form No.29 of Companies (Central Government) General Rules and Forms under the Companies Act, 1956. 29. Learned advocate for respondent No.4 thereafter referred to the provisions of Section 303(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and submitted that the company shall send to the Registrar of Companies a return in duplicate in prescribed form i.e. Form No.32 of the Companies (Central Government) General Rules and Forms containing the particulars specified in the Register of Directors for appointment/change in its Directors etc. As the respondent No.4 has never consented to act as Director of the applicant company, the company has not filed any return with the Registrar of Companies pursuant to Section 303(2) of the Companies Act which shows that respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company. 30. Learned advocate further submitted that the respondent No.4 had never attended any Board Meeting of the company, he had also not signed the documents of the company where signatures of a Director are mandatory and he had never received any notice pursuant to Section 286 of the Companies Act, 1956 of the Board Meeting or Annual General Meetings of the company. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that had the respondent No.4 been a Director of the company, he was required to sign the Register of Attendance of Directors for the meeting. However, respondent No.4 had never signed for any attendance in any Register of Attendance of Directors which clearly shows that respondent No.4 was never a Director of the applicant company. 31. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that had the respondent No.4 been a Director of the company, he was required to sign the Register of Attendance of Directors for the meeting. However, respondent No.4 had never signed for any attendance in any Register of Attendance of Directors which clearly shows that respondent No.4 was never a Director of the applicant company. 31. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that as per Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 a company is required to file Annual Return every year with the office of Registrar of Companies, which is required to be signed by the Directors of a company. However, the respondent No.4 has never signed any such Annual Return of the company. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the Statement of Accounts of the company which is produced at Annexure-B with the compilation and submitted that the signatures of respondent No.4 are not available along with the signatures of other Directors on the Statement of Accounts of the company since the respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company. 32. Learned counsel thereafter referred to the provisions of Section 266A of the Companies Act and submitted that said Section provides for allotment of Director Identification Number, which is mandatory in nature. Since respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company, he had not sent any intimation of allotment of Director Identification Number. This further goes to show that respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company and his name seems to have been misused with some mala fide intention. 33. Learned advocate thereafter has placed reliance upon the contents of Search Report produced at Annexure-D with the compilation and submitted that respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company and he was not aware and fully ignorant about the transactions contained in the Judge's Summons. 34. Learned advocate Ms. Paurami B. Sheth for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has referred to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the reply of respondent No.4 and submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed as Director on 15.07.2002 and accordingly Form No.29 duly signed by respondent No.4 along with counter signature of respondent No.2 as a Managing Director was presented before the Registrar of Companies on 15.07.2002 with necessary proof of residence. 2 and 3 against the reply of respondent No.4 and submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed as Director on 15.07.2002 and accordingly Form No.29 duly signed by respondent No.4 along with counter signature of respondent No.2 as a Managing Director was presented before the Registrar of Companies on 15.07.2002 with necessary proof of residence. Similarly, Form No. 32 intimating appointment of respondent No.4 as a Director w.e.f. 15.07.2002 was also presented before the Registrar of Companies with requisite payment of fee. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth also submitted that respondent No.4 also applied for Director Identification Number to DIN Proceeding Cell and same was approved and respondent No.4 was given DIN 00112731 which was informed to him by Ministry of Company Affairs vide letter dated 11.05.2006. Learned advocate further submitted that on receipt of the said number, respondent No.4 intimated to the applicant company. Learned advocate Ms. Sheth further submitted that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, the Annual Reports are required to be signed by any two Directors and therefore the contention raised by the learned advocate for respondent No.4 that the Annual Reports are required to be signed by all the Directors is misconceived. Thus, merely because respondent No.4 had not signed the Annual Reports will not change his position as Director. 35. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-inrejoinder filed by respondent No.4 to the reply of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that the proofs sought for in para 2 of the said rejoinder are still not provided by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned advocate further submitted that the Form No.29 produced by respondent nos. 2 and 3 is not genuine and the form was not intended to be used for being appointed as Director of the company. Learned advocate further submitted that assuming without admitting that respondent No.4 was a Director, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to produce any documents with respect to the details given in para 3(iv) of the rejoinder. Learned advocate further submitted that applying for Director Identification Number does not amount to admitting directorship in any company and respondent No.4 had applied for Director Identification Number in his individual capacity and if the respondent No.4 was a Director of the company he ought to have intimated his DIN to the company. Learned advocate further submitted that applying for Director Identification Number does not amount to admitting directorship in any company and respondent No.4 had applied for Director Identification Number in his individual capacity and if the respondent No.4 was a Director of the company he ought to have intimated his DIN to the company. Thus, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 was not a Director of the company and therefore he may be absolved from being a Director of the applicant company. 36. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot for respondent No.5 - one of the Directors of the company in liquidation submitted that the application is misconceived and not tenable in law. The applicant has suppressed material facts and therefore the application deserves to be dismissed in limine. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval M. Barot adopted the arguments canvassed by learned advocate Ms. Paurami B. Sheth appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and further submitted that the application is not maintainable since the Official Liquidator has not sought leave of this Court under Section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for filing the present application. 37. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dilip Kanojiya for respondent No.1 company has supported the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He has submitted that this application, which is filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act of 1956, is not maintainable and this Court may not pass a decree against respondent No.1 as prayed for. He has further contended that in some of the matters of present group of applications, respondent No.1 companies are defunct companies and therefore these applications be dismissed. 38. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the documents produced on record by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also considered the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 39. From the arguments canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties and from the documents produced on record, following important aspects reveal: (a) Alps BOP Services Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by an order passed by this Court on 10.12.2009 in Company Petition No.173 of 2007 and the Official Liquidator attached with this Court was appointed as liquidator of the said company. When the Official Liquidator had taken over the charge of the company in liquidation, he came to know that the Board of Directors of the company in liquidation passed a resolution in the meeting held on 06.04.1999 that unutilized fund of the said company be invested in various entities as Inter Corporate Deposits. (b) Respondent No.2 herein has submitted a list of companies in which Inter Corporate Deposits were made by company in liquidation and therefore when the liquidator verified the Statement of Affairs and the list given by respondent No.2, it was revealed that 2,56,00,000/- was deposited by the company in liquidation with respondent No.1 company as on 14.02.2001. Similarly, in other applications of this group of matters, different amount has been deposited by the company in liquidation with respondent No.1 company in each case. (c) From the balance sheet of the company in liquidation for the year ending on 31.03.2008 and from the Auditor's Report produced on record it is revealed that the interest free loans and advances were given to respondent No.1 company in each case by the Directors of the company in liquidation. The respondent No.1 company in each case has not repaid the said amount to the company in liquidation and therefore the Directors of the company in liquidation time and again requested the said companies to return the amount. (d) The Liquidator of the company in liquidation, therefore, initiated these proceedings under the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and prayed various relief/s as stated in the Judge's Summons. 40. Thus, from the aforesaid broad facts of the present case the preliminary question which is required to be decided and considered by this Court is as to whether the Official Liquidator can file these proceedings under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Court for recovery of an outstanding amount of the company in liquidation from the concerned respondents or not? In other words, the question is whether these applications are maintainable or not? If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, then the subsidiary question would be who is liable to return the amount to the Official Liquidator in the facts of the present case? 41. In other words, the question is whether these applications are maintainable or not? If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, then the subsidiary question would be who is liable to return the amount to the Official Liquidator in the facts of the present case? 41. For considering and deciding the aforesaid questions, first of all the provision of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 along with the orders passed by this Court in similar matters, are required to be considered. Section 446 of the Companies Act provides that: "446. Suits stayed on winding up order:- (1) When a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced. or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Tribunal and subject to such terms as the Tribunal may impose. (2) Tribunal shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of- (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); (c) any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company; (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or rise in course of the winding up of the company; whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted, or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the company, or before or after the commencement of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960 (65 of 1960). [***] (4) Nothing in sub-section (1) or subsection (3) shall apply to any proceeding pending in appeal before the Supreme Court or a High Court." 42. Thus, from sub-section (2) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is clear that Tribunal/Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company and any claim made by or against the company. 43. Thus, from sub-section (2) of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is clear that Tribunal/Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company and any claim made by or against the company. 43. This Court in the decision rendered in the case of Official Liquidator of Aryodaya Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) held as under: "Held, allowing the application, (I) that under section 446(1) of the Companies Act when a winding up order had been made or the official liquidator had been appointed provisional liquidator there was bar on institution of suits or commencement of other legal proceeding or if such suit or legal proceeding was pending at the date of the winding up order there was a bar against proceeding further except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose. The object of section 4465 of the Act is to save the company which is being wound up from unnecessary litigation and expenses and to protect its assets for equitable distribution amongst its creditors and its shareholders. The provisions of section 446(2) and (3) of the Act have been specifically incorporated to ensure that the liquidator in course of winding up is not required to file suits for recovering properties of the company as otherwise it will become virtually impossible to order winding up of a company in liquidation. Under Section 446 of the Act, the legislative intent to permit the High Court to initiate proceedings straightway as if they were proceedings of the court of an appropriate jurisdiction is clear; that there should be no impediment in the way of the liquidator necessitating his getting involved in unnecessary litigation as there is public accountability after a winding order has been passed to determine the liquidation proceedings as expeditiously as possible and tenants of companies under winding up cannot stretch the winding up proceedings to suit their personal interest." 44. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the aforesaid provision is incorporated to ensure that the liquidator in course of winding up is not required to file suit for recovering the properties of the company. The intention of the legislature to permit the High Court to initiate proceedings straightway as if they were proceedings of the court of an appropriate jurisdiction is very clear. The intention of the legislature to permit the High Court to initiate proceedings straightway as if they were proceedings of the court of an appropriate jurisdiction is very clear. Thus, the present applications are maintainable under the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act and therefore answer to question No.1 is in affirmative. 45. Thus, the second question which is required to be considered is whether respondent No.1 company alone is liable to return the amount to the Official Liquidator or the ex-directors of the company in liquidation i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are also personally liable to make good the said loss caused to the corpus of the company in liquidation. 46. From the facts discussed herein above and from the documents produced on record along with the averments made in the application, it is clear that the ex-directors of the company in liquidation i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not liable for the loss caused to the company in liquidation. There are no specific findings given by the Auditor or any Chartered Accountant in the report that the ex-directors of the company in liquidation have intentionally given the amount to the respective respondent No.1 companies by way of Inter Corporate Deposits. In the application itself the Official Liquidator has stated that the report of the Chartered Accountant is awaited. It is further stated in para 11 of the application that from the balance sheet and Auditor's note it is clear that Shri Mukesh Patel has in collusion and in connivance with respondent No.1 may have taken monitory benefit out of the transactions (emphasis supplied). Thus, there are no specific allegations levelled by the applicant against respondent No.2 herein or against any other Directors of the company in liquidation. Moreover, no supporting documents are produced on record with a view to justify the allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 47. If the Official Liquidator is of the opinion that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - ex-directors of the company in liquidation have acted in collusion with respondent No.1 company, as a result of which, the company in liquidation has suffered a loss, he has to initiate the proceedings under Section 543 of the Companies Act. 2 to 5. 47. If the Official Liquidator is of the opinion that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - ex-directors of the company in liquidation have acted in collusion with respondent No.1 company, as a result of which, the company in liquidation has suffered a loss, he has to initiate the proceedings under Section 543 of the Companies Act. However, such type of proceedings can be filed only when the Directors have misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company or has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust. Thus, even the said section also provides that the charges levelled against the Director should be specific and not vague and general. Thus, even when the application under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 is filed, such an application should contain a detailed narration of the specific acts of commission and omission on the part of the exdirectors of the company in liquidation. 48. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the Official Liquidator in the application made vague allegations and assumed certain aspects. However, neither of such allegations contain any specific acts or default committed by any of the respondents herein. The Official Liquidator has not produced any evidence or documents in support of his submission about the involvement of the ex-directors - respondent Nos. 2 to 5. There is no allegation about retention of money or misfeasance on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and no evidence is produced with regard to breach of trust or fraud committed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Even if such allegations are levelled the same are required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Thus, the Official Liquidator - applicant herein has failed to prove any case against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein. 49. At this stage, it is clarified that submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate for respondent No.4 as to whether respondent No.4 was a Director of the company in liquidation or not are not dealt with in this order since this Court has specifically held that the Ex-directors of the company in liquidation are not liable to make the payment to the applicant - Official Liquidator. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.4 cannot claim any declaration whether he was a Director of company in liquidation or not in the proceedings filed by the Official Liquidator. If respondent No.4 has any grievance that even though he was not a Director of the company in liquidation, his name was wrongly incorporated in the record as the Director of the company in liquidation, he has to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum but in any case he cannot seek any declaration in the proceedings filed by the applicant - Official Liquidator. From the record, it is further clear that till the present proceedings are initiated, respondent No.4 has not taken any action nor informed any authority that he was not the Director of the company in liquidation. Thus, without discussing further on this aspect, it is clarified that respondent No.4 can initiate appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum with regard to his grievance and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same will be considered in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in these proceedings. 50. Now, the provisions contained in Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 are required to be referred to at this stage. The said Section provides as under: "543. Power of Tribunal to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. 50. Now, the provisions contained in Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 are required to be referred to at this stage. The said Section provides as under: "543. Power of Tribunal to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. (1) If in the course of winding up a company, it appears that any person who has taken part in the promotion or formation of the company, or any past or present director, manager, liquidator or officer of the company- (a) has misapplied, or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of the company; or (b) has been guilty of any misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the company; the Tribunal may, on the application of the Official Liquidator, of the liquidator, or of any creditor or contributory, made within the time specified in that behalf in subsection (2), examine into the conduct of the person, director, manager, liquidator or officer aforesaid, and compel him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof respectively, with interest at such rate as the Court thinks just, or to contribute such sum to the assets of the company by way of compensation in respect of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, as the Tribunal thinks just. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall be made within five years from the date of the order for winding up, or of the first appointment of the liquidator in the winding up, or of the misapplication, retainer, misfeasance or breach of trust, as the case may be, whichever is longer. (3) This section shall apply notwithstanding that the matter is one for which the person concerned may be criminally liable." 51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also had an occasion to deal with this issue in the case of Raghava Desikachar & Ors (supra), wherein it has been observed and held as under: "..It may be mentioned that misfeasance action against the Directors is a serious charge. It is a charge of misconduct or misappropriation or breach of trust. For this reason the application should contain a detailed narration of the specific acts of commission and omission on the part of each Director quantifying the loss to the company arising out of such acts or omissions. The burden of proving misfeasance or nonfeasance rests on the Official Liquidator. For this reason the application should contain a detailed narration of the specific acts of commission and omission on the part of each Director quantifying the loss to the company arising out of such acts or omissions. The burden of proving misfeasance or nonfeasance rests on the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator, it may be mentioned, merely relied upon the evidence recorded in public examination of the directors and on a few documents tendered in evidence. At the stage of public examination there was no charge of misfeasance against the Directors and they were not in a position to know what would be the grounds that would be alleged against them for recovering any amounts, for the loss said to have been caused to the company by reason of such misfeasance...." 52. Moreover, this Court, in the case of Kavasji Tehmures Modi (supra), has considered the provisions contained in Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereafter observed and held in para 11 as under: "11. A bare reading of the above provisions makes it amply clear that proceedings under this section are of civil nature and the liability, which is enforced therein, is a liability in the nature of a tort or a quasi-criminal responsibility. It is basically grounded on the principle that a person, who has caused loss to the Company by an act which would amount to a breach of trust, should make good the loss. The section provides a summary remedy to determine the amount payable by such director. It is also contemplated in this section that the charges levelled against the delinquent directors should be specific and not of vague and general nature. When any application is filed by invoking these provisions, such application should contain a detailed narration of the specific acts of commission and omission on the part of the delinquent director. The Courts have consistently taken the view that proceedings under this section are not maintainable when there is no specific charge with regard to misfeasance or breach of trust etc., duly coupled with concrete proof and/or documentary evidence. The Court is very slow or rather restrains itself from making an order against the directors en masse for all acts of misfeasance etc., without any specific finding as to which director is actually responsible for particular act of misfeasance. The Court is very slow or rather restrains itself from making an order against the directors en masse for all acts of misfeasance etc., without any specific finding as to which director is actually responsible for particular act of misfeasance. When no specific or particular allegation was made in regard to each and every officer so as to make him responsible for repaying or restoring the money or property of the company and individual responsibility was not identified and established, it would be difficult for the Court to grant an appropriate relief in the matter. The Courts have also taken the view that in order to enable the Court to examine the conduct of a particular director or officer and to make him personally liable for misfeasance or misconduct, there should be proper pleadings and specific evidence as regards the acts complained of." 53. Thus, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and even this Court, it is clear that even when the application is filed under Section 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Official Liquidator against the Ex-directors, specific allegations with regard to misfeasance and breach of trust are required to be mentioned in the application. However, it is clarified that this application is not filed under the aforesaid provisions of law but it is filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 but even then no specific averments are made in the application against respondent nos. 2 to 5 nor any material is produced against the Ex-directors involving them for the act of giving Inter Corporate Deposits to respondent No.1 company. Merely because such deposits are made and the respondent No.1 company has not returned the amount, it does not mean that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - Exdirectors of the company in liquidation are liable to pay the said amount to the Official Liquidator. 54. Merely because such deposits are made and the respondent No.1 company has not returned the amount, it does not mean that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - Exdirectors of the company in liquidation are liable to pay the said amount to the Official Liquidator. 54. However, so far as each respondent No.1 company in different applications is concerned, it is clear from the record that each respondent No.1 has accepted the Inter Corporate Deposit from the company in liquidation and the said amount is not repaid to the company in liquidation, as a result of which the said company faced financial difficulties and ultimately when one of the creditors of the company in liquidation filed the petition before this Court for winding up of the said company, this Court passed an order of winding up of the said company. Thus, I am of the opinion that present application is required to be allowed by holding each respondent No.1 company liable to refund the amount to the applicant - Official Liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. Accordingly, respective respondent No.1 Company in each application is hereby directed to pay to the liquidator of Alps BPO Services Ltd. the amount mentioned in column 4 of the table given in para 5 above together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the payment is made to the applicant. The other prayers made in these applications are not required to be allowed and they are rejected. 55. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, all these applications are disposed of.