- (1.) IT appears that in this matter the Hon'ble Court passed an order on 24 -8 -2007 when the appellant/petitioner sought for deletion of the names of the appellant as a respondent in the misfeasance proceedings on the ground that the appellant was not informed in the day to day management of the company prior to its liquidation and the appellant was not a director of the company on the date of the winding up and there was no participation by the appellant in the meetings of the company. The Court at that point of time passed an order that such statement cannot be accepted without verifying the same and liberty was granted to the appellant to urge all grounds taken in the said application. It appears subsequent thereto just after seven days that is on 31 -8 -2007 statement of affairs was filed by the Managing Director and after accepting the said statement of affairs court dropped the complaint as against the second accused and also against the other accused. Since Court found out that it was only the second accused who was responsible for the running of the company immediately prior to its liquidation and the second accused has taken up all responsibility for the affairs of the company prior to its liquidation.
(2.) AFTER passing of such order, in our opinion, it is ample clear from the said order that there is no question of taking any further steps against the present appellant. It appears that statement made by the appellant at that point of time before the Court was subsequently accepted by virtue of the order so passed on 31 -8 -2007. Hence, in our opinion, the said order dated 24 -8 -2007 in the light of the order dated 31 -8 -2007 cannot have any effect and accordingly the same is set aside.
(3.) HAVING regard to the facts of the case in question, we allow this appeal only the said grounds. The appeal and the application are, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.;