9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent applicants. This would be without prejudice to the rights of the applicants to seek recovery of their dues from any other tangible assets of the R1 Company or take recourse to any other remedy available under law. It is being made abundantly clear that the Undertaking given by the respondents to liquidate the assets would in no way be their defence in the prosecution initiated under section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 or in any other Court of law. As observed earlier during the proceedings, that though the parcels of land offered are mere sops which are either of little value or are unsaleable, but have been taken to secure and salvage the depositors' interest at least to that extent. The agitated depositors also apprehend that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The lead case is being taken up as Bimla Kothari v. Unitech Ltd. and pleadings and documents filed therein, being voluminous, would be considered common to all petitions. 2. Fixed deposits invited from the public have duly matured, but the Respondent Company has raised its hands and expressed its inability to repay the matured proceeds. The Respondent had initially approached the erstwhile Company Law Board with an application under section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for extension of time to repay the deposits which was rejected. 3. The investors, many of whom are either Senior Citizens or are facing acute financial crisis, have approached this forum for redressal of their grievances with the fond hope of retrieving their invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it has not invited, accepted or renewed any deposits on or after 01.04.2014 (i.e. date on which Section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013 was notified), the deposits in question in the present applications cannot come under the preview of the Deposits as mentioned in Section 73(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. 6. It is further argued on behalf of the respondents that the term depositors has been defined under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 under Section (2)(1)(d), as per which depositors means,- (i) any member of the company who has made a deposit with the company in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Act, or (ii) any person who has made a deposit with the public compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same had been rejected. Ld. Counsel also submits that all depositors were being paid regularly till the company faced the downslide and while the going was good there were no grievances and the depositors willing offered money as deposits to get the benefit of a higher rate of interest. 9. The petitioners numbering more than 300 have repudiated the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the respondents. A major bunch of the petitioners have been represented by Mr. Ashok Sachdeva, Advocate. Ld. Counsel seeks to demolish the respondent's application for dismissal of the petitions on grounds of maintainability and has submitted that the new act of 2013 does not supersede the old Act of 1956, but is in supersession and hence grants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it accepted by the company. 11. I therefore find no merit in the respondent's application for dismissal of the petitions on the grounds of maintainability. It is viewed as an exercise to procrastinate and derail the proceedings with a fond hope of succeeding. What I do agree with Mr. Sindhwani is that no case of cheating under section 420 IPC is made out, which is the sentiment of the agitated depositors, as the intention to cheat was non-existent at the time of acceptance of the deposits, a fact borne out from the regular interest previously enjoyed by the petitioners. 12. The respondent's application is therefore dismissed with costs of ₹ 25,000/-. Costs to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. 13. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hend that the directors of R1 Company may escape the boundaries of the country and they may have little to realise their hard earned money. The office of the ROC may take appropriate steps. Though tardy, prosecution under section 74 (3) of the is stated to have started. Respondents have submitted, as directed, the photocopies of their passports. In addition, they have filed their Affidavits giving their individual assets and the statements of their JVs, Subsidiaries and Associates. It was observed in some financial statements on record that some of the alleged loans to the subsidiaries etc. had been written off. It would be beyond the scope of this Bench to look into this aspect. The documents submitted shall be handed over to the RoC to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
