9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective matured FDR - amount is decreed in favour of the respective appellant together with pendent lite and future interest @ 12.5% p.a. from the date of maturity of the respective FDR till receipt thereof - Respondent will pay ₹ 50000/- each to the above three appellants towards cost of litigation, costs etc. - Appeal allowed. - COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.216 of 2019, 218 of 2019, 219 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2020 - Justice Jarat Kumar Jain Member (Judicial), Mr. Balvinder Singh Member (Technical) And Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. Ateet Bansal For the Respondent : Ms Shrishti Juneja, Advocate JUDGMENT MR. BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 1. These three Appeals i.e. Company Appeal (AT) No. 216, 218 and 219 of 2019 have been preferred by the Appellants under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013 against three impugned orders dated 30th May, 2019 in Case No. 86/73(4)/ND/2019, 89/73(4)/ND/2019 and 88/73(4)/ND/2019 respectively passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ( for short Bench ). 2. The Appellants have filed the Appeal under Section 421 and prayed for quashing and set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest amounting to ₹ 60,507/- which is calculated at 12.5% P.A. from the date of maturity on the matured amount for the delayed period till September 2019. 7. It is stated by the Appellant that impugned order has failed to appreciate that Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013 provides for punishment for contravention of Section 73 or section 76 which states that: 76A. Where a company accepts or invites or allows or causes any other person to accept or invite on its behalf any deposit in contravention of the manner or the conditions prescribed under section 73 or section 76 or rules made thereunder or if a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest due thereon within the time specified under section 73 or section 76 or rules made thereunder or such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal under section 73,- (a) the company shall, in addition to the payment of the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than [one crore rupees or twice the amount of deposit accepted by the company, whichever is lower] rupees but which may extend to ten crore rupees; and (b) every officer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h pendent lite and future interest @ 10% from the date of filing till the receipt. All the submission on behalf of the Appellant is similar as in the above two cases. 9. Respondents filed their reply and rebutted in brief as under: - a) It is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in a mechanical and non-reasoned manner and suffers from non-application of mind, material irregularity, error apparent on the facts of the record and is therefore liable to be set aside. b) It is further submitted that the impugned order has been taken by the Hon ble NCLT in complete violation of the orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India whereby the Hon ble Supreme Court is unequivocally seized of the matters against the Respondent and has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the company or its director. c) It is stated on behalf of the Respondent that due to certain ongoing disputes, certain purported complaints were filed by various persons whereby aggrieved by order dated 11th August 2017 passed by this Hon ble Court, the Managing Directors of the Respondent Company filed Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and therefore the present Appeal deserved to be dismissed in limine. 10. Appellants argued that the NCLT have erred in law in deciding the matter by reducing the contracted rate of interest and also have awarded the interest from the date of filing the petition before the NCLT till realisation thereof. Appellants also argued that they have also spent the litigation cost at NCLT and have also deposited the court fees in the Registry of NCLAT for filing the appeal. Appellants have also argued that the reliefs sought by them may be awarded and heavy cost may also be imposed upon the Respondent. Appellants also argued that despite taking notice at NCLT, Respondent have not appeared nor filed any reply and indirectly they have admitted their liability. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the main promoters are behind bar and the financial condition of the Respondent company is not good and the Hon ble Supreme Court has directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the company or its directors. Respondent has placed certain orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court in this regard. Respondent argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
