2016 (12) TMI 62 - Tri - Companies Law

Enhancement of time for liquidating the liability under the fixed deposits accepted but are unable to repay the proceeds on account of acute financial crises - Held that - The proposal of the petitioner company for enhancement of time for repayment of the matured deposits in a phased manner over a period of 24 months from the due date is being accepted in principle only in view of their past track record. However, it is also subject to their adherence to the schedule submitted in Court. It therefore becomes imperative to review and accord extension quarterly in terms of the above. The petitioners have also undertaken that in addition to the above schedule they would be making provisions of ₹ 60 lacs per quarter towards Hardship cases. The Company Secretary, its V.P. Finance as well as the Counsel for the petitioner shall review the Hardship applications received every three months. The final disbursal of this Hardship cases shall be on approval of this Bench. The compliance report shall be placed before this Bench for review and quarterly extension of time in terms of the proposal accepted by this Bench today. The same shall be annexed with a certified copy of this order. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks of expiry of every quarter for further extension giving the names of all depositors whose liability/extent of liability has been extinguished and/or their remaining liability together with the amount of the next/remaining installment due and the next date on which they are likely to receive further installment of their money.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for enhancement of time for liquidating liability under fixed deposits
- Prayers for extension of time due to financial crisis in Real Estate Industry
- Proposal for phased repayment schedule for different categories of depositors
- Acceptance of proposal subject to adherence and quarterly review
- Provision for hardship cases and quarterly review process
- Compliance reporting and quarterly extension process outlined

Issue 1: Application for enhancement of time for liquidating liability under fixed deposits
The petitioner filed an application under section 74(2) of the Companies Act 2013 seeking an extension of time to repay the fixed deposits due to financial difficulties caused by the Real Estate Industry's downturn. The petitioner assured that they had never defaulted on their statutory obligations or towards depositors in the past.

Issue 2: Prayers for extension of time due to financial crisis in Real Estate Industry
The petitioner requested an extension of time to liquidate matured fixed deposits as the Real Estate Industry's financial challenges hindered their ability to mobilize funds. The Bench encouraged the petitioner to improve their proposal for repaying depositors efficiently. A final proposal, subject to timely adherence, was accepted by the Bench to grant the company breathing space to recover financially.

Issue 3: Proposal for phased repayment schedule for different categories of depositors
The petitioner proposed a revised repayment schedule categorizing depositors based on the amount of fixed deposits held. The schedule outlined different percentages and timelines for repayment, ensuring that smaller investors up to Rs. 50,000 would receive their proceeds on maturity, while larger amounts would be repaid in phased installments over a maximum of 24 months.

Issue 4: Acceptance of proposal subject to adherence and quarterly review
The Bench accepted the petitioner's proposal in principle, considering their past track record, but emphasized strict adherence to the schedule submitted in Court. The extension of time for repayment was subject to quarterly review to ensure compliance with the proposed repayment schedule.

Issue 5: Provision for hardship cases and quarterly review process
The petitioner committed to allocating Rs. 60 lakhs per quarter towards hardship cases, with a review process every three months by the Company Secretary, V.P. Finance, and Counsel. Disbursal of funds for hardship cases required approval from the Bench, ensuring transparency and accountability in addressing exceptional circumstances.

Issue 6: Compliance reporting and quarterly extension process outlined
The judgment mandated the submission of a compliance report to the Bench for review and quarterly extension of time based on the accepted proposal. The report, accompanied by a certified copy of the order, needed to detail the status of liability repayment for depositors, ensuring transparency and monitoring of the repayment process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, including the application for time extension, the proposed repayment schedule, provisions for hardship cases, and the compliance reporting and quarterly review process to monitor the repayment of fixed deposits by the petitioner company.