9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstance, for the company-in-liquidation to carry on its business of money lending, licence should have been in force till the date of winding up. If that be the position, the company-in-liquidation was required to have the money lending licence in force till 13.03.2002, unless the company-in-liquidation had made any positive efforts to see that the company does not require the money lending licence as the activities had come to a standstill. Therefore, first or the second respondent cannot be held liable for negligence as on the date of maturity, more particularly in a circumstance when the second respondent has acted immediately on receiving the communication from the Official Liquidator pursuant to the statement of affairs which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Dhana Chakra deposit scheme has been impleaded as the third respondent. 2. The respondents have filed their objection statement and denied the contention put forth in the application. During the pendency of the instant application, the first respondent has made over the original deposit receipts regarding which the first prayer is made in the instant application, Therefore, insofar as the first prayer, the application has become infructuous. 3. Notwithstanding the said position, the applicant/Official Liquidator has subsequently filed a memo contending that the third respondent-bank should be directed 10 pay the interest on the said deposit from the date of the maturity of the deposits as indicated in Annexure-A to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in equity at least they should be directed to pay interest for having retained and utilised the amount for their business purposes. Hence, it is contended that in any event, either the first and second respondent jointly or the third respondent would be liable to compensate the company-in-liquidation for the loss suffered. Therefore, the memo filed subsequent to the filing of the application or the second prayer made in the application is liable to be accepted. 5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would contend that the company-in-liquidation was ordered to be wound up on 13.03.2002 and the fixed deposits had matured nearly a year prior to the said date on 14.03.2001 being the last of date of maturity and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as against them. However, being a conscious banker and in view of the request made by the second respondent who was the deposit certificate-holder, the amount has been returned and the maturity amount alone is to be returned as per the contract and therefore, there can be no further liability against the third respondent. Hence, it is contended that when the applicant has not even made a prayer in the application against the third respondent, the relief sought for in the memo cannot be granted and the same is liable to be rejected. 7. In the light of the rival contentions of the parties and having noticed that the first prayer for return of the original deposit receipts to the Official Liquidator has rendered itself infructuous and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding up. If that be the position, the company-in-liquidation was required to have the money lending licence in force till 13.03.2002, unless the company-in-liquidation had made any positive efforts to see that the company does not require the money lending licence as the activities had come to a standstill. 9. Be that as it may, in the instant case, as already noticed, the last of the deposit had matured on 15.03.2001 which was about one year prior to the date of winding up order. If that be the position, the persons who were in charge of the affairs of the company and the company being a going concern as on the said date were required either to have the fixed deposits renewed by making necessary efforts with the third respondent-bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made out against the third respondent since the responsibility of the third respondent to discharge the receipt would arise only on presentation of the original receipt to the bank. In the instant case, the second respondent communicated to the third respondent bank with regard to payment of the amount due to the said respondent. The third respondent has immediately paid the principal amount which was liable to be paid and since there was no order for renewal, the interest subsequent to maturity had not been paid. 12. In that view of the matter, considering that the deposits had matured much prior to the date of winding up, it is the persons who were in charge of the company as on that day who need to explain if there was any lap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
