9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent along with her husband had made a total of twenty investments in the sum of Rs. 82,099 between 23rd April 1988 to 24th June 1989 in two schemes of the company, i.e., fixed deposit scheme and hire purchase scheme. It is stated that under both the schemes, the cumulative/compound rate of interest @ 14% (for fixed deposit) and 27% quarterly or 30% p.a. (for hire purchase scheme) was payable. 4. The Respondent submitted claims in all the twenty investments along with the originals of the certificates of fixed deposits and the hire purchase agreements. She also furnished the calculations of maturity value of the investments from the date of deposit till the date of winding up, i.e., 9th October 1997. By a letter dated 4th November 2006, the OL informed the Respondent that her claim in the sum of Rs. 7,42,509 had been admitted. The payment of the said sum was made on 12th May 2006. 5. While hearing the main winding up petition, the Court was on 7th September 2009 informed that the OL was in the process of re-examining the question of settlement of claims. The Court was also informed that certain complaints had been received which were under examination. The Court required a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of simple interest up to the date of maturity, instead of compound interest till the date of winding up." 8. Meanwhile, while hearing C. A. No. 1267 of 2010 in C.P. No. 95 of 1990 on 23rd July 2010, the Court was shown the claim-wise chart prepared showing the status of 43 claims scrutinised by the CA, M/s Rai & Co. As far as the present application is concerned, on 12th August 2010, notice was issued to the Respondent. In the reply filed to the application, it is first contended that the Respondent is entitled to compound interest under Rule 156 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 ('Rules'). It is submitted that the CA has not calculated the maturity value up to 1st October 1997, i.e., the date of the winding up and also the date up to which the OL had directed the Respondent to submit claims in the prescribed form. It is stated that the Respondent has a right to challenge the report of CA and is entitled to lead evidence and cross-examine the CA. 9. Mr. Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent, first submitted that the application itself was not maintainable under Section 446 (2) (b) of the Act since no leave of the Court has been obtained by the OL before filing the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso untenable. Section 446 reads a under: "446. Suits stayed on winding up order-(1) When a winding up order has been made or the Official Liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose. (2) The Court shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, have jurisdiction to entertain, or dispose of- (a) any suit or proceeding by or against the company; (b) any claim made by or against the company (including claims by or against any of its branches in India); (c) any application made under section 391 by or in respect of the company; (d) any question of priorities or any other question whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may relate to or arise in course of the winding up of the company; whether such suit or proceeding has been instituted or is instituted or such claim or question has arisen or arises or such application has been made or is made before or after the order for the winding up of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red between 28th September 1988 and 24th July 1991. It is nobody's case, however, that the deposits were renewed beyond the aforementioned dates. Secondly, what is significant is that, as explained by the CA in its letter dated 29th September 1992, each document had a statement "that this arrangement will remain in force for ___ from this date unless otherwise renewed/extended by the parties." In most of the deposits, the figures were filled in by hand. The CA has explained why the calculation of interest by the Respondent is different from what has been calculated by them as under: "The number of months has been filled with pen by hand and signed by the company. This period differs for each agreement. Wherever the period of this agreement is extended, the same has been changed with pen and signed. The last date of extended period has been taken as the maturity date for the purpose of calculation of interest as per the photo copy of the agreement made available to us. The Claimant has calculated the interest up to 01/10/1997 i.e. up to the date of liquidation but we have taken the period for calculation of interest up to the last date of maturity before the date of liquidation. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. 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. 19. Learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on the decision in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (2002) 1 SCC 367, which in turn referred to the decision in CIT v. Dr. Sham Lal Narula AIR 1963 Punjab 411, is misplaced. It is submitted the Respondent was deprived of the money beyond the date of maturity till the date of payment and was, therefore, entitled to interest, compensation or damages based on the principle governing Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In particular, reliance was placed on the observations that "It may be regarded either as representing the profit he might have made if he had the use of the money, or, conversely, the loss he suffered because he had not that use." 20. The decision in Central Bank of India v. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
