9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no automatic deemed renewal of the deposit. The compound rate of interest was payable only as long as the deposits had not matured. After the date of maturity and in the absence of any renewal, the Respondent would be entitled to interest not exceeding 4% on the deposit amounts for the period from the date of the maturity till the date of payment. The amount payable to Mrs. Madhu Bala Sharma was Rs. 1,26,701.14. Therefore, clearly, an excess payment was made to her. None of the objections of the Respondent either to the maintainability of the application or to its merits is tenable. The Respondent is directed to refund to the OL the excess amount of Rs. 6,13,408 together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from 12th May 2006 till the date of payment, which, in any event, cannot be beyond eight weeks from today. If the payment is not made within the time granted, the Respondent will be liable to pay penal simple interest @ 12% p.a. on the said sum for the period of delay. - CO.APPL.(C) No. 1 of 2010 in Co. Pet. No. 95 of 1990 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2013 - S. Muralidhar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for the Official Liquidator For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the stand that no compound interest as such was admissible on her claims, the OL by letters dated 24th November 2009 and 14th December 2009, requested Ms. Madhu Bala Sharma to return the excess of Rs. 4,81,169. 7. On 21st January 2010 the Court granted the OL four weeks time to file a status report with respect to each claim. It was directed that the report will also point out all particulars of the officer or officers handling these claims. It is also open to the Official Liquidator to seek the assistance of a Chartered Accountant, if he considers it necessary to do so in this matter. Consequent upon the above order, the OL engaged the services of M/s Rai Co., Chartered Accountant ( CA ) and the claims filed were handed over to them. In the report the CA set out the principal amounts as well as the maturity value of the deposits. The CA found that some of the disbursements made, including that made to the Respondent, were in excess of their legitimate dues. The OL then calculated that an excess payment of Rs. 4,81,169 was made to the Respondent. On the above basis, the present application was filed on 12th July 2010. It was, inter alia, stated in para 8 of the applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, whereas the OL had to file a proper application seeking the recovery of money. It is asserted that the Respondent has a right to defend the claim, to lead evidence, to cross-examine the CA upon whose report the present application was based. Fourthly, it is submitted that there was no infirmity or illegality qua the disbursement made by the OL and the report of the CA was erroneous. Fifthly, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma that the interpretation placed by the OL on Rule 156 was erroneous. It is submitted that in view of the latter part of Rule 156, the Respondent was entitled to cumulative interest during the period of investment. It is submitted that after the expiry of the period of deposits up to the date of payment, the Respondent was entitled to the rate of interest on the basis of the current rate under Section 3(1) of the Interest Act, 1978 and not as per the first part of Rule 156 of the Rules wherein the flat rate has been stipulated. It is submitted that the deposits could not be renewed since the company officials went missing and the company itself was closed. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sharma placed reliance on the decisions in S. Peer Mohammed v. B. Mohan La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the leave of the Court for filing an application under Section 446 does not arise. It is only where a claim is to be filed by the company in some other forum that the leave has to be obtained. The expression claim is of wide amplitude and includes a claim for refund of payment made in excess. 13. As regards the submission that parties should be permitted to lead evidence and only then the application is to be decided, it is seen that given the nature of the claim in the present case, which is a claim for refund of money paid in excess and which is based on the report of the CA, the matter cannot be said to be complicated. The affidavits both in support of the application as well as reply have been filed. There is actually no need for cross-examination since the question is of a simple arithmetical calculation once the legal principles are settled. A plain reading of Rule 156 shows that simple interest in excess of 4% p.a. on the deposits cannot be paid beyond the date of maturity of such deposits. In that view of the matter, no prejudice could be said to be caused to the Respondent if the Court were not to frame issues and permit the parties to lead evidence. In Ravindra S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas the claimant has calculated cumulative interest for a period ranging from eight to ten years i.e. upto the date of liquidation 01/10/1997 which comes to Rs. 6,60,410. Hence claimant s calculated interest amount is much more than the interest shown in our report and hence there is a difference of Rs. 6,15,808 (6,60,410- 44,602). (emphasis in original) 15. Clearly, the deposits were not renewed beyond the dates of maturity. However, the Respondent has calculated the compound interest payable on the deposits for a period even beyond the date of maturity and up to the date of winding up. 16. Rule 156 of the Rules reads as under: 156. Interest.- On any debt or certain sum, payable at a certain time or otherwise whereon interest is not reserved or agreed for, and which is overdue at the date of the winding-up order, or the resolution as the case may be, the creditor may prove for interest at a rate not exceeding four per cent per annum up to that date from the time when the debt or sum was payable, if the debt or sum is payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, and if payable otherwise, then from the time when a demand in writing has been made, giving no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
