9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se aspects squarely came to fore when, payments made by the appellant to Punjab & Sind Bank i.e. the secured creditor, were noted. A perusal of the minutes dated 22.09.2011 would show that, amongst others, Mr Sanjay Yadav, Dy. O.L. was present at the said meeting.A perusal of order dated 26.08.2011 would show that the date of appearance of ex-directors before the OL and the chartered accountant was changed from 29.08.2011 to 22.09.2011, which is when, the meeting was held and the minutes were drawn up. The argument that the OL was unaware of the payments made by the appellant i.e. the ex-director is, according to me, not tenable. Second, the submission of Mr Choudhary is equally unsustainable for the reason, which is, that irrespectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken into confidence. Therefore, you are not entitled to make any claim with respect to the funds available with the company (In Liqn). 4. Further you also do not fall in any of the category as mentioned in under section 529, 529 A or 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. And take further notice that subject to the power of the Court to extend the time, no application to reverse or vary my decision in rejecting your proof will be entertained after the expiration of 21 days from the date of service of this notice dated this 12th day of November 2014.... 2. Mr Chaudhary, who appears for the OL, seeks to sustain the order briefly on two grounds. First, that the settlement was arrived at by the appellant in his capacity as guarantor withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany (In Liqn.) can file their claim as Secured Creditors upto ₹ 49 Lakhs and for the balance amount, he can file his claim as Unsecured Creditors as and when claim will be Invited by this office.... 4. A perusal of the minutes dated 22.09.2011 would show that, amongst others, Mr Sanjay Yadav, Dy. O.L. was present at the said meeting. 4.1 A perusal of order dated 26.08.2011 would show that the date of appearance of ex-directors before the OL and the chartered accountant was changed from 29.08.2011 to 22.09.2011, which is when, the meeting was held and the minutes were drawn up. 5. Therefore, the argument that the OL was unaware of the payments made by the appellant i.e. the ex-director is, according to me, not tenable. Seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
