Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (6) TMI 846

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ners/Applicants Advocate has alleged the diversion of funds of the Respondent company. On the other hand, the Respondent Advocate has controverted that there is no case of siphoning of funds of the company. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Respondent company be allowed to continue the bank accounts in the interest of the company and the Petitioners be given liberty to look into the receipts and payments of money in the bank accounts so as to ensure that the funds are utilised in the interest of the company. - Decided partly in favour of Petitioners. - C.A. No. 239 of 2013 & C.P. 40 (ND) of 2013 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2014 - Dhan Raj, J. For the Appellant : Hemant Sharma and Anant Sharma. Fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 56.54 crores is outstanding and there is an irregularity in the loan account to the extent of Rs 7.36 crores. In addition, it has been alleged that the Mehra family is diverting the funds from the authorised accounts to illegal and unauthorised accounts which is against the interest of the Company as well as the shareholders. Apart from this, as stated in the Company Application, the Applicants have come to know that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 23.10.2013 purported to have been entered with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as one party and one Neeta Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. as the other party and in the said MOU. The liabilities of Respondent No. 9 are being sought to be discharged by Respondent No. 1 and for meeting the li .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... story of understanding of partnership with the main promoter in 1985. 2.1 It has been emphasized that it is strange that 3,07% shareholders, who have no right to interfere in the decisions of Board of Directors are making unnecessary allegations without any basis. In fact, it is the privilege of the Board as to in which bank to open the accounts and the problem of Petitioners/ Applicants is that they have lost the source of siphoning after ceasing to be Directors. Further, it has been reiterated that all the decisions are being taken by the Board of Directors who are legally authorised to take such decisions and Board is doing everything in the interest of company within its powers. In addition, it has been highlighted that MOU is betwe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o secret bank account and all the bank accounts are with public sector bank banks. Therefore, it has been vehemently denied that there is a prima facie case where Respondent No. 1 is having and operating illegal and unauthorised bank accounts via the Mehra family with a mala fide intention to deceive the shareholders, creditors and the bankers and there is no diversion of funds and no stripping of assets. 3. The Petitioners/Applicants Advocate argued that the Respondent No. 11 vide letter dated 30-08-2013, has notified the company as well as the Applicant No. 1, a guarantor that a sum of Rs 56.54 crores is outstanding and there is an irregularity in the loan account to the extent of Rs 7.36 crores. Further, it has been alleged that it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that the said bank accounts ought not to be used for diversion of funds of the company. On one side, the Petitioners/Applicants Advocate has alleged the diversion of funds of the Respondent company. On the other hand, the Respondent Advocate has controverted that there is no case of siphoning of funds of the company. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Respondent company be allowed to continue the bank accounts in the interest of the company and the Petitioners be given liberty to look into the receipts and payments of money in the bank accounts so as to ensure that the funds are utilised in the interest of the company. As such, I hereby direct the Respondent No. 1 Company to submit the bank statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates