9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner. The order dated February 1, 2010, did not permit the company to include any material beyond dealing with the supplementary affidavit and enclosing copies of the documents referred to in the opposition. 3. The petitioner in C.P. No. 316 of 2008 claims that inter-corporate deposits were made during the financial year 2006-07 of a total amount of Rs. 4.18 crores. The petitioner suggests that the deposits were to carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The singular feature of the claim in either case is that there was no document exchanged between the parties at the time that the alleged inter-corporate deposits were made and there is no written agreement as to interest or the quantum thereof. The petition in either case contains only the statutory notice as the annexure thereto. In either case the company did not respond to the statutory notice despite due receipt thereof. It is such fact that the petitioner in either case cites in asserting the claim and insisting that upon the company failing to reply to the statutory notice the presumption under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, had inarguably arisen in favour of the petitioner. In the affidavit, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 293(1)(d) of the Companies Act, 1956, whereupon it was orally agreed by and between the parries hereto that the petitioner will arrange and make Inter Corporate Deposit (hereinafter referred to as TCD') for company sums not exceeding Rs. 5,00,00,000 (rupees five crores) only to be given in such sum or sums of money having regard to the company's exigency of business and carrying interest at 10 per cent. per annum, (paragraph 6 of the petition) 6. . . . The entire transaction was arranged by and at the instance of Mamta Binani, who is associated both with the petitioner and the company as also various other concerns including Ujjwal Trafin P. Ltd., Computech and Compact Disc India and had caused several transactions including once referred to in the instant petition to be entered into by and between the said parties and the company . . . The company shall crave reference to its own bank's statements to evidence concurrent transactions between the company and the petitioner, Ujjwal Trafin P. Ltd., Computech and Compact Disc India, which will clearly show that in any event, no sums were liable to be repaid by the company to the petitioner." (from paragraph 6 of the affidavit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.P. No. 315 of 2008 such other concern is Ujjwal Trafin P. Ltd. The petitioner in either case insists that these documents which have been relied upon in the company's affidavits have been manufactured and brought into existence for the purpose of the present proceedings and should not be given any credence. The petitioner says that if such letters were, indeed, issued in the year 2007 as the company claims, there would have been no occasion for the company to make payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs which the company made to the petitioner in C.P. No. 316 of 2008 on May 13, 2008. The petitioner submits that the documents appear to have been fabricated. The petitioner has relied on copies of the statutory records and documents relating to Clarion Overseas (India) P. Ltd., and seeks to demonstrate that Santanu Ghosh, who is the principal person in control of the company, is also the principal person in control of Clarion. The petitioner says that the company should have at least demonstrated that it had made the payment to Clarion following the alleged request contained in the documents relied upon in C. P. No. 316 of 2008. The petitioner seeks to deny the rubber stamp and letter-hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he company says that it has produced some material in its rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit in support of such defence which would undo the presumption that may have arisen on the company's failure to reply to the statutory notice. At pages 82 and 83 of the rejoinder in C.P. No. 316 of 2008, the company has detailed the payments received from the two petitioners and the almost simultaneous pay-out of an equivalent amount by the company in most cases. The pay-outs have been made in favour of concerns by the name of Computech and Compact Disc India. At pages 99 to 104 of the rejoinder, the company has relied on the bank statement of Computech. At pages 105 to 107 of the rejoinder the company has relied on the bank statement of Mrigiya Electronic Industries P. Ltd. Interestingly, the status of Computech in the bank statement reads "relationship customer-father" and the status of Mrigiya in its bank statement reads "relationship customer-child". The company seeks to establish that in at least one case there was a payment made by the petitioner to the company which was passed on by the company to Computech which was immediately parked in Mrigiya and, almost simultaneously, return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rplus on account of security premium account was another Rs. 3,15,90,000. As to its business apparent from its balance-sheet for the relevant financial year, the petitioner had fixed assets in computers worth Rs. 20,910 and investments in unquoted shares (four in private limited companies and four in unlisted public companies) of value of Rs. 1,30,41,750. The balance in its profit and loss account was the princely negative amount of Rs. 34,433.50. In the following financial year, the total income of the peti tioner, as is evident from its profit and loss account, was Rs. 21,150. Its total expenditure was Rs. 47,534 and the combined loss carried to its balance- sheet was Rs. 63,418.50. The only investments of the petitioner additionally made in the financial year 2007-08 were in shares of private limited companies as would appear from the first schedule to the balance-sheet. For such a company as the petitioner making an inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 4.18 crores in course of a few months, notwithstanding its apparent paid-up capital and free reserves, appears to be somewhat unusual. 11. There is also no apparent logic in the petitioner making payment in driblets. It is the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
