9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial. As the Appellants have compromised the matter with the Respondent original Applicant relating to his grievances under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and now the Respondent original Applicant has been repaid his deposits with interest, we give liberty to the Appellants to request the District Sessions Court, Dwarka or to move any other authority before which any enquiry or action is pending for suitable relief, if, in case the same is purely founded on the basic grievance of Respondent Applicant that the Company had failed to repay his deposit. Appeal disposed off. - Company Appeal (AT) No.150 of 2018 And Company Appeal (AT) No.151 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2019 - Mr A. I. S. Cheema, Member (Judicial) And Mr Balvinder Singh, Member (Technical) For The Appellant : Shri Rajnish Kumar Jha, Shri Nishant Kumar Srivastava, Shri R.J. Alva and Ms. Akriti Jai, Advocates For The Respondent : Shri Lal Chand Singhal in person JUDGEMENT A.I.S. Cheema, J. : 1. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 21.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed off with directions to the ROC to initiate necessary prosecution under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. The matter be referred by the ROC to the SFIO to make an inquiry into the allegations of siphoning off the funds, specially of inter corporate deposits, and if retrievable, take adequate steps to protect them from further dissipating so as to meet the liability of the applicant herein and to initiate punishment akin to the provisions of Section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The applicant is also entitled to seek recovery of his principal amount with upto date interest in execution proceedings. Petition disposed off in terms of the above. 4. The original Applicant Lal Chand Singhal in spite of the above Order of NCLT, filed Company Appeal (AT) No.38/2018 making various grievances. The present Appeals were then filed by the original Respondents. When the three Appeals came up before us, the parties on 4th September, 2018, stated that they had settled the matter between them. The following Order came to be passed by us on 4th September, 2018:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring and request that matter may be posted in first week of January, 2019. 7. Adjourn the matter. List the same on 8th January, 2019. 8. The Impugned Order dated 21.11.2017 is hereby stayed till 8th January, 2019. 9. List the Appeal on 8th January, 2019. Dasti allowed, to parties. 5. Subsequently, when the three Appeals came up before us on 8th January, 2019, the parties represented and the following order was passed by us:- 08.01.2019 - Heard the appellant, Mr. Lal Chand Singhal who is appearing in person in Company Appeal (AT) No.38/2018 and is respondent in the other two appeals. Heard the learned counsel in the appeals in Company Appeal (AT) No.150 and Company Appeal (AT) No.151/2018. Perused the joint application filed vide Diary No.6857 and MOU dated 27.08.2018 filed with the joint application and which is at Page 17 of the Diary No.6857. The appellant, Mr. Lal Chand Singhal is present before us and he submits that he has received all the money which he had to receive back from the respondents and he has no grievance left against the respondents in his Company Appeal (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Let Company Appeal (AT) No.150/2018 and 151/2018 be listed for hearing appellants and directions on 16.1.2019. 6. Accordingly, the Company Appeal 38/2018 filed by the original Applicant Lal Chand Singhal came to be withdrawn and the present two Appeals remained. On 16th January, 2019, we heard the Counsel for the Appellants. The following Order was passed:- 16.01.2019 - Counsel for appellant in both these appeals submits that the appellants who were respondents in Company Appeal (AT) No.38/2018 have already compromised with the present respondent, Mr. Lal Chand Singhal in Company Appeal (AT) No.38/2018 which has been disposed as withdrawn. The counsel states that the present appellants have filed copy of the complaint with annexures which were filed by ROC as CT-525 of 2018 in the Court of Distt. Sessions Judge, Special Court, Dwarka, New Delhi as a consequence of the directions in the impugned order. He says that the appellants have filed affidavit and stated that there is no other prosecution pending against these appellants as a consequence of impugned order. On instructions the counsel makes a state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the Appellants have compromised the matter with the Respondent original Applicant relating to his grievances under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and now the Respondent original Applicant has been repaid his deposits with interest, we give liberty to the Appellants to request the District Sessions Court, Dwarka or to move any other authority before which any enquiry or action is pending for suitable relief, if, in case the same is purely founded on the basic grievance of Respondent Applicant that the Company had failed to repay his deposit. 8.2 We make it clear that if the ROC or the SFIO have initiated any other enquiry and investigation into the allegations of siphoning of funds, especially of inter corporate deposits and taken any steps in view of the other directions in the operative part of Impugned Order, the ROC and SFIO would be free to proceed if they have any other material for action under the Companies Act, other than the grievance made by original Applicant which was that the Company had failed to repay his deposits. 9. With these directions, the present Appeals stand disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
