9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperties of TIDCO and its subsidiaries and to disclose what steps it had taken till date to dispose those of and/or as to how it proposes to deal with the same viz., sale and/ or realise proceeds thereof to clear of claims of the company in liquidation at the earliest. Since there is no clarity till date as to what happened to the money received by three companies viz., (a) RMS Club & Resorts Ltd.; (b) Chahhat Garments Pvt. Ltd. and (c) Rewari Developer (P) Ltd. – which allegedly were the paper companies of Mr.Madhur Mittal and Mr.Sumit Mittal and since its erstwhile management has conveniently allege they have no objection if money is paid by Official Liquidator to Awas Samiti, without even disclosing the end use of the money received by their three companies aforesaid, it would be appropriate to issue notices to said three companies viz (1)RMS Club and Resorts Private Limited; (2)M/s Chahat Garments Private Limited; and (3) M/s Rewari Developer Private Limited asking them to disclose the bid amount received and if such amount on cancellation of bid was remitted to the Official Liquidator and if not then to return such amount(s) so received. Admittedly, on cancellation of bid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount. However, the applicant company did not further carry out the transaction and applied for refund of its amount paid. Vide order dated 08.02.2016 the Official Liquidator was directed to refund the amount of ₹ 6,01,34,307/- @ 4%. 3. It was argued by learned counsel for the Official Liquidator since only an amount of ₹ 15 lakh was paid to the company in provisional liquidation so only such amount can be refunded to the applicant herein. 4. Learned counsel for the Official Liquidator also referred to an affidavit of P.Kumar, the ex-director of the respondent company which show the amount has not been fully paid to Triveni Company and rather was paid to four companies and to the investors and hence no amount is payable per order dated 08.02.2016. 5. Mr.Bhambani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Awas Samiti has countered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator while referring to various documents, orders etc. to press his claim. The learned counsel referred to the minutes recorded on 23.02.2011 at the office of Official Liquidator in the matter of Triveni Infrastructure Development Limited in the presence of (i) Offici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the land was done and it was observed the said land belong to Triveni (company under liquidation). c) The sale notice dated 29.06.2011 was issued qua the aforesaid land mentioning the above company is in liquidation and lands are being sold in one lot with the consent of the companies as mentioned in the table and the demand draft was payable to the Official Liquidator, Delhi. The said land belonged to four companies as is reflected in the sale notice and those companies were namely, M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Company Limited; RMS Club and Resorts Private Limited; M/s Chahat Garments Private Limited; and M/s Rewari Developer Private Limited. d) The sale notice clarified the land admeasuring 27,455.80 square meter, per the valuation report as on April, 2011 of M/s ITCOT Consultancy and Services Limited was in the nature of an undeveloped residential land; its reserve price was fixed pursuant to Court s order dated 02.06.2011; the details of the Khasra numbers could be obtained from the office of Official Liquidator; the tenders shall be opened before the Company Judge in Court No.11, Delhi High Court in the presence of the tenderers; the terms and conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent company have floated any other company or entity or used any individual to siphon off any funds of the company in liquidation or have violated any law, caused any loss of revenue to the State or created any assets in their name, its employees or their relatives from the funds of the company in liquidation or from the investors of the company under liquidation and would also examine the legal status of the projects launched by the former promoters and directors of the company under liquidation. h) The findings of the investigation by SFIO, in particular para Nos.12, 12.1 wherein during the course of investigation, it was found that the promoters of TIDCO namely Madhur Mittal and Sumit Mittal have floated / acquired 17 number of subsidiaries company which included, RMS Club and Resorts Private Limited; M/s Chahat Garments Private Limited; and M/s Rewari Developer Private Limited and have invested about ₹ 73.00 Lacs in these companies which money belong to M/s Triveni Infrastructure Development Limited Company (TIDCO). During the course of investigation and on perusal of the balance sheets of remaining subsidiaries companies it was observed that most of the subsidi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rstanding given the fact that all parties as well as the Courts have accepted and treated the amount as a payment made by the appellant towards its bid amount for participating in the auction undertaken by the Court. The parties having accepted the change of status of the payment made by the appellant cannot go back from the same. The payment, therefore, cannot be treated as a payment under the Memorandum of Understanding and the appellant cannot be called upon to stand in the queue of creditors before the Official Liquidator to await the refund of such amount as it may be entitled to. It is so directed. 8. The learned senior counsel argued the funds of ₹ 8.00 Crore lying with the TMC were transferred in the account of Official Liquidator and hence the Official Liquidator cannot say it has no amount with him to pay to the applicant. Admittedly the applicant had paid an amount of ₹ 8,32,34,307/- to TIDCO and balance consideration was to be paid but could not be paid. 9. The amount so paid to the applicant herein admittedly was not to be treated as a payment under the Memorandum of Understanding and as per the Division Bench s order the appellant was not to stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erning this aspect, came to be recorded in this court s order dated 28.11.2011. The applicant-samiti in the course of proceedings held on 28.11.2011 made it clear that it was not interested in going through with the purchase of the subject land, and that, it would be interested in pressing only, prayer (B). 4. Accordingly, as noted above, notice was issued only qua prayer (B), which has been extracted above by me. To be noted, that order was taken up in appeal. The Division Bench while disposing the appeal, vide its order dated 02.01.2012, observed that the issue pertaining to forfeiture of 10% of the bid amount was still at large. 5. For the sake of completion, I may also state that there was yet another order passed by the Company Judge, which is order dated 01.04.2014. This order was also carried in appeal to the Division Bench in Co. App. No.32/2014. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal vide order dated 11.07.2014 wherein it, inter alia, observed that applicant need not stand in queue along with other creditors in order to seek refund of its amount. The Division Bench, however, left the aspects concerning prayer (B) for decision by the Company Judge. 6. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
