9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the Registrar General pursuant to the directions dated 24.04.2014, but the petitioners also failed to comply with the necessary formalities, and eventually waived their rights in lieu of placing a claim for the said amount before the Official Liquidator. The fact that no claim is lodged before the Official Liquidator is another story. Indeed, the amount is lying deposited in this Court out of the reach of the stakeholders. However, since much water has flown over the last ten years or so, the amount deposited should rather be utilised for satisfying the claims of the secured creditors. The amount, which has been deposited with the Registrar General, may be reclaimed by the Official Liquidator with accrued interest and the same may be brought within the corpus of the funds of the company (in liquidation) to be utilised for satisfaction of the claims of the secured stakeholders in accordance with law - Application dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Petitioners Through: Mr. Piyush Sanghi, Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Mr. Nikhil Singh, Mr. Sahil Pahwa, Mr. Priyadarshi Gopal and Ms. Megha Kapoor, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CO.PET. 145/2014, seeking winding up of the respondent company. 4. Although the amount sought to be released was acknowledged to be due and payable by the respondent company, as reflected in the order dated 24.04.2014, it was stated on behalf of the respondent that certain issues under the FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act] may arise, insofar that the petitioners would have to secure an appropriate certificate to receive the amount; and further that a certain amount of service tax may be recoverable from the petitioners, which aspect came to be recorded in the order dated 24.04.2014, and therefore, the respondent was accordingly directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 44,41,250/- with the Court. 5. The respondent company, however, sought more time to make the required deposit as directed by this Court, on 26.05.2014 as also 16.07.2014. Subsequent thereto, the amount of Rs. 44,41,250/- was deposited by the respondent before the Registrar General of this Court in two instalments of Rs. 20,00,000/- and 24,41,250/-, which came to be recorded in the order dated 28.08.2014. The amount so deposited has since been ordered to be invested in an interest-earning fixed deposit with UCO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The said contention was not countenanced by the Bombay High Court, and the following observations were made: 7. The opposition from HDIL is that since there is a moratorium that has come in to play in view of the insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the amount of Rs. 8 crores deposited in this Court is 'the property of HDIL' within the meaning of Section 14 of the IBC. That submission does not commend itself. Once an amount is deposited in this Court, it is placed beyond the reach of either party without permission of the Court. It is, therefore, not 'the property of either party pending an adjudication as to entitlement by the Court. Once the Arbitrator held that it was Nahar Builders that was entitled to this amount, and that award became enforceable as a decree of this court, then no question remained of the amount being claimed by HDIL. In another manner of speaking, from the time the deposit was made until the time withdrawal is ordered, that amount is not the property of either party to the dispute. 8. It is true that an execution against HDIL is presently stayed but this is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Fixed Deposits and such application was allowed on 10.05.2014. The petitioners confounded the issues when they joined in the batch of winding up petitions pending against the respondent company, which is reflected vide Annexure A-10 , wherein the following order dated 22.07.2016 was passed: All these petitions seeking winding up of the respondent company, VIGNESHW ARA DEVELOP WELL PVT. LTD., are, inter alia, predicated on the alleged non-payment of various sums of money, which according to the petitioners, have remained unpaid despite service of notice of winding up on the registered office of the respondent company; and to which, no reply has been given by the respondents. Counsel for the Official Liquidator, who is present in Court, points out that in another Co.Pet. No.885/2015, titled COL. P.K. UBEROI (RETD.) ANR. v. VIGNESHWARA DEVELOPWELL PVT. LTD ORS.; also seeking winding up of the respondent company, the Official Liquidator attached to this Court has been appointed as the Provisional Liquidator of the company. Under the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in these matters. Counsel for the petitioners seek to withdraw their respective petitions, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
