9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deposit No. Date of commencement Deposit (Rs.) Maturity amount Date of maturity S-5176 520483 06-05-2001 6,85,000 10,05,443 06-05-2004 S-5177 520484 15-05-2001 9,00,000 13,21,020 15-05-2004 S-5178 520485 15-05-2001 1,27,000 1,86,441 15-05-2004 Total : 17,12,000 25,12,874 3. Thereby, the company is in obligation to repay the deposits made by the deceased Singhania, as aforesaid, but the company failed to do so. As the company failed to repay the deposits made by the depositors, several depositors filed applications before the Company Law Board in the year 2002. Responding to the same, the company came forward with a scheme to pay the deposits along with interest in instalments, in pursuance thereof, this Bench passed an order directing the company to repay all the unpaid deposits according to the scheme formulated by the Bench by rescheduling the plan of repayment of public deposits matured up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of, alienating or transferring in any manner any of the assets and properties of the company including the two tea estates and the office building at 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 017 ; (b)A special officer be appointed to take immediate possession of the assets and properties of the company as mentioned in Schedule P8 to the application ; (c)The special officer be directed to sell the aforesaid properties of the company by public auction and/or private treaty and to hand over the sale proceeds to the applicants in protanto satisfaction of their claims ; (d)A special officer be appointed to collect all rents which the respondent-company is receiving from its tenants from the office building at No. 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata and to hand over the same to the applicants month by month in protanto satisfaction of the claims of the applicants ; (e)An order of injunction restraining the company from operating any of its bank accounts without leaving a sum of Rs. 48,12,418.52 being the claim of the applicants ; (f)A special officer be appointed to take possession of all teas belonging to the respondent-company and lying at Guwahati Warehouse at No. Bhuyan Khat Udyog, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed deposits due to financial crunch of the company. This Bench having reduced PMI from 10 per cent to 7 per cent on the said application by an order dated May 18, 2009 ; these applicants are not entitled to PMI at 10 per cent. With these submissions, the respondent-company stated that this application is devoid of merit, thereby, sought it to be dismissed. 6. The applicants herein filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the company stating that the respondent-company is estopped from raising the contention of submitting fixed deposits receipts within 30 days prior to maturity and also over PMI at 10 per cent per annum because this company already moved a section 10F appeal before the honourable High Court at Calcutta assailing the impugned order dated February 12, 2009, whereas the honourable High Court dismissed the appeal stating that mere non-filing of succession certificate will not affect the interest of the appellant as the appellant, i.e., the company has to implement the order of the Board since the interest of the company is already fully protected by the order passed by the Board, thereby, appeal is dismissed. The applicants further stated that they have not received the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch passed an order on May 18, 2009, reducing the PMI from 10 per cent to 7 per cent per annum on the application moved by the company, wherein the present applicants are not parties. Secondly, reduction of rate of interest is an issue to be decided on the merits, that being already decided in the previous orders, the May 18, 2009, order reducing the rate of interest from 10 per cent to 7 per cent without even putting it to the notice of the applicants, is not binding upon the applicants and also not affecting the order dated February 12, 2009, which is the cause of action for filing this application. Moreover, in the order dated May 18, 2009, the Bench did not even mention that this reduction from 10 per cent to 7 per cent is applicable in the case of the applicants. The order dated February 12, 2009, being final between the parties, the Bench being not conferred any review power the order dated February 12, 2009, directing the company to repay the deposit amount along with the PMI amount at 10 per cent will not be affected by the order dated May 18, 2009, hence, this Bench held that the order dated May 18, 2009, is not binding upon the applicants. 12. As to the fifth point, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
