2020 (10) TMI 705 - Tri - Companies Law

Permission to withdraw, from time to time, such amounts as may be required for the educational expenses of his son - HELD THAT - The son of the Applicant has received intimation letter from the Institute of Management and is desirous of taking admission there. It cannot be disputed that the expenses of admission and the course which the son of the Applicant wishes to undertake cannot be met from the limited/fixed amount that the applicant is allowed to withdraw every month from his bank account(s). The Applicant would not be in a position to meet the educational expenses of his son from the amount that the Applicant is allowed to withdraw, nor has he any other resources for the purpose. The objection by the Respondent (UOI), that the Applicant is involved in the financial irregularity of the Gitanjali Gems Ltd and that is being invested by SFIO as well as the CBI would not be relevant for the prayers made in the present Application. The prayers made in the Application concerns the life and the career of young man who has nothing to do with the alleged wrongdoings of his father. The involvement or otherwise of the Applicant in the Company Petition would be taken into account during hearing of the Petition after considering all the relevant facts. The Applicant is permitted to withdraw such amount as would be necessary from the HDFC Account to defray the educational expenses of his son Manthan Sanjay Rambhia for pursuing the PGDM eBiz program in Welingkar Institute of Management Development Research, Matunga, Mumbai on his submitting the Institute s intimation or letter requiring him to deposit such amounts with the Institute according to the payment schedule of the Institute - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Application for modification of order to withdraw educational expenses for son.

Analysis:
1. The initial application sought modification of previous orders to allow the Applicant to withdraw amounts for his son's educational expenses. The Union of India filed a petition under sections 221, 222, 241, and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 against Gitanjali Gems Ltd and associated entities for conducting affairs prejudicial to public interest, alleging involvement in a financial fraud of approximately Rupees Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Crores. The Tribunal initially restrained the removal or disposal of assets by the respondents and later permitted limited monthly withdrawals. Various respondents challenged this order, leading to further legal proceedings.

2. The Union of India later sought to implead additional respondents, including the present Applicant, and extended the previous orders to these new respondents. Consequently, the order of restraint and limited fund withdrawal applied to the Applicant. The Applicant, a Chartered Accountant with family responsibilities, filed applications seeking relief from the financial restrictions due to adverse effects on his family maintenance and his son's educational aspirations.

3. The Respondent opposed the Applicant's requests, citing ongoing investigations by SFIO and CBI into the Applicant's alleged involvement in financial irregularities related to the bank scam. The Respondent demanded disclosure of the Applicant's bank account details before the Tribunal to assess his financial situation. The Tribunal directed the Applicant to provide his bank account statements for review.

4. After reviewing the Applicant's bank account details and his son's admission intimation from an institute, the Tribunal acknowledged the son's desire to pursue higher education and the inadequacy of the current withdrawal limit for educational expenses. The Tribunal found the objections regarding the Applicant's alleged involvement in financial irregularities irrelevant to the son's educational needs and granted permission for the necessary funds withdrawal for his son's education at the specified institute.

5. The final order allowed the Applicant to withdraw the required amount from his HDFC account to cover his son's educational expenses for pursuing a specific program at the Institute of Management. The Tribunal permitted withdrawals upon submission of the institute's payment schedule and intimation. The order also addressed the deposit already made by the Applicant towards the educational fees. It clarified that the ruling did not impact other pending applications in the Tribunal related to the Applicant or other concerned parties.