9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief as may be deemed fit to the circumstances, and thus render justice. 2. Brief averments of the application are the respondent herein is a public limited company, which was incorporated on March 15, 1996 vide CIN : U65991TN1996PLC034825 having its registered office at Fawaas Complex, 99/A-10, Thalayari Street, Pattukottai, Thanjavur-614 601. The authorised capital is Rs. 60,00,000 and paid-up capital is Rs. 24,88,130. 3. Pursuant to call by the respondent-company, the applicant deposited the amount of Rs. 9,90,000 by 18 fixed deposits out of which 8 deposits were made on August 22, 2018 (vide fixed deposit Nos. 4565 to 4572) with maturity date being August 22, 2019 and 10 deposits (vide fixed deposit Nos. 4589 to 4598) on August 24, 2018 with maturity on August 24, 2019. The amount claimed to be in default is Rs. 10,98,000 and interest from August 25, 2019 to January 8, 2020 will be Rs. 40,260. These deposits are repayable on demand after maturity date and not renewed thereafter. The principal business of the respondent-company is a "Nidhi Company" and therefore they have to either refund the deposit or renew it. In spite of repeated demands, the respondent-company failed to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ughter, i. e., the applicant herein Ms. S. Hemalatha as "E or S" holder. Mr. T. Shanmuganathan in connivance of his relatives who were employed in the company in senior managerial positions, instructed the staff in his capacity as director of the respondent-company to issue the fixed deposit receipts in the name of his daughter Ms. S. Hemalatha, the applicant herein as the first deposit holder and the original depositor as "E/ S" holder in contravention of the standard operating procedures of the respondent. In view of the procedural lapses highlighted during KYC audit, it was decided to seek KYC documents of both the depositors before the close of the deposits. In response to the company's letter to the deposit holders, some of the depositors instructed the respondent-company not to pay the maturity proceeds to the applicant Ms. Hemalatha and requested the respondent to pay the entire maturity proceeds to them individually (P. 108 to 115). 8. Due to conflicting claims by the deposit holders, the deposits were renewed for a period of 12 months for the maturity value on August 22, 2019 and the original FD receipts were retained by the respondent-company towards non-furnishing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s" as per the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. As per section 2(9) of the said Benami Transaction is defined as "a transaction or an arrangement-(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person ; and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration". 12. The respondent has further received claims relating to another 26 deposits with principal value of Rs. 14,85,000 and that this disputed amount has also been deposited into a separate bank account. The respondent during the process of seeking KYC from the original depositors observed that the signature on the no objection letters executed by original depositors in 2018 and the signature on replies received directly from the depositors during 2020 substantially differ (P74 to P94). It is an established fact that Mr. T. Shanmuganathan has forged the signatures of the original depositor for obtaining a pecuniary benefit by misusing the office of the director held by him to engage in money laundering with the connivance of his relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general meeting unless re-appointed. The respondent-company did not reappoint Mr. T. Shanmuganathan, father of the applicant, as director and therefore his directorship expired in the year 2014 when the general meeting was convened and these facts are not relevant to the present case. (iii) All the fixed deposit receipts accepted by the company are signed and issued by Mr. Jothirajan. Section 406 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with rule 6 of the Nidhi Rules, 2014 specifically prohibits the company to deal with third parties. (iv) The deposits held by the applicant which matured on September 15, 2019 was paid back by the respondent only on February 11, 2020 and this shows that they are habitual defaults in deposit repayments. (v) The respondent utterly erred in depositing the amount without leave of this Tribunal. (vi) There is no need for KYC when the company has all the relevant information such as PAN, Aadhaar copy and address proof of the applicant. (vii) The respondents resort to bring in unwanted issues raised by some third parties which has no relevance in the present case. The case filed by some association for falsification of KYC documents are not pertaining to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
