9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 618 - Tri - Companies LawDemand of Return of deposits with interest - allegation is that neither interest is paid to the depositors nor returned the deposits and that the entire money collected by way of deposits have been siphoned off - HELD THAT - It appears from the record that this Company Petition is filed under Section 237 read with Section 247 of the Companies Act 1956, by the Petitioners to declare the affairs of the Respondent Company ought to be investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the depositors deposited huge sum of money with Kakkazham -Neerkunnam Union of SNDP Yogam. The Kakkazham -Neerkunnam Union of SNDP Yogam neither repaid the interest nor returned the deposit to the depositors. Aggrieved by the act of the Yogam the Petitioner filed this Petition before the High Court of Kerala. The entire money collected by way of deposits have been siphoned off. The depositors approached before Sub Court and Munsiff Court, Alappuzha for recovery of money and they have obtained money decrees against the SNDP Sakha Yogam Branch No.363. The total amount due under the decrees come to ₹ 5,56,81,066/. The 131 decree holders formed an organisation named as Nikshepaka Samrakshana Samithy and obtained registration as A 391. The samithy authorised with Power of Attorney to Sri. Unnikrishnan Nair, for the purpose of realising the decree amount from the SNDP authorities. The assets of the Shaka will have to be first liquidated in a purposeful manner so as to obtain maximum resource to facilitate settlement of the various creditors, which effort will also have to be fortified by effective steps to recover money from its debtors. The affairs of the Respondent Company ought to be investigated by an Inspector appointed by the Central Government. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Transfer of Case 2. Mismanagement and Misappropriation of Deposits 3. Legal Obligations and Responsibilities of Respondents 4. Previous Court Orders and Decrees 5. Maintainability of Petition under Companies Act 6. Role of Receiver and Liquidation of Assets Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Transfer of Case: The petition was initially filed before the High Court of Kerala and later transferred to the NCLT, Chennai, and subsequently to the NCLT, Kochi Bench. This transfer was pursuant to the notification by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. 2. Mismanagement and Misappropriation of Deposits: The petitioners, representing various depositors, alleged that significant sums were deposited with Kakkazham-Neerkunnam Union of SNDP Yogam, which were neither repaid nor was interest paid. The deposits were collected under the scheme 'Chathaya Dina Deposit'. It was claimed that the entire money collected was siphoned off, resulting in financial losses for the depositors. 3. Legal Obligations and Responsibilities of Respondents: The petitioners argued that the 6th Respondent, being responsible for the branches, had both vicarious and legal obligations to ensure the judicious handling of transactions. The 6th Respondent, however, contended that the branches operated independently and that the assets and liabilities of the branches were separate from those of the 6th Respondent. 4. Previous Court Orders and Decrees: Several depositors had approached the Sub Court and Munsiff Court, Alappuzha, and obtained money decrees against SNDP Sakha Yogam Branch No.363. The total amount due under these decrees was ?5,56,81,066. The High Court of Kerala had also passed orders for the public auction of certain properties to settle these decrees, appointing Shri A.S.P. Kurup as the receiver. 5. Maintainability of Petition under Companies Act: The petitioners sought an investigation under Section 237 read with Section 247 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the allegations did not pertain to the business or affairs of the 6th Respondent. It was also noted that the 6th Respondent was deemed to be incorporated under the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act, 1961, and not under the Companies Act, 1956. 6. Role of Receiver and Liquidation of Assets: The Tribunal noted the High Court's order directing the liquidation of the assets of the 'Shaka' to settle the creditors. The receiver, Shri A.S.P. Kurup, was tasked with executing this order. The Tribunal concluded that no further order was required from it, as the High Court's directions were comprehensive and binding on the petitioners. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the petition, emphasizing adherence to the High Court's directives for the liquidation of assets and settlement of creditors. The role of the receiver was pivotal in executing the court's orders.
|
