Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1425 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIRepayment of deposits - Fresh Scheme filed to re-fix schedules/instalments - Held that:- Here is an Appellant who just before stringent provisions of new Act are to be enforced, rushes to CLB under the old Act and gets a comfortable scheme settled for repayment of deposits which were due and would become due within one year and then under the new Act declares to the ROC that maturity of all the outstanding FDs has been extended. We do not think that such Appellant deserved indulgence from NCLT, even if it was to be held that such second application could be maintained. If Section 74 is seen, where in respect of any deposit accepted by a Company before the commencement of the Act, the amount of such deposit or part thereof or interest due thereon remains unpaid on the commencement (that is w.e.f. 01.04.2014) or becomes due at any time thereafter, the Company shall repay within one year from such commencement or from the date on which such payments are due, whichever is earlier. This is clear from Section 74(1)(b). This provision grants one year’s time from the date of commencement of the Act or date when the repayment is due, whichever is earlier. It is obvious that all deposits accepted before commencement of the new Act are required to be paid not later than one year from the date of commencement of the Act irrespective of whether such deposits had fallen due for payment or not and whether or not the Company was regular in payment of interest/deposit or not. Considering these provisions, it appears to us that Section 74(1)(b) was attracted and when it appears from record that the Appellant defaulted, the penal provisions would get attracted. We are not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the reference to the matter of “Jainendra Sahai Sinha” [2017 (3) TMI 1716 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] helps the Appellant to state that multiple applications for extension of time could be filed. When once a scheme had been got settled, from CLB, default on the part of the Appellant would attract penal provisions as the earlier scheme itself laid down. If we accept the argument of Appellant that more than one application could be filed under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, it would be like rewriting the Section to read that “The Tribunal may on an application made by the company, from time to time, after considering the financial condition of the Company” allow further time to the Company. We cannot read or add words like “from time to time” in the provision as no such multiple applications are provided for. Else, the provision will become a tool to stall recovery suits and Insolvency Proceedings, which cannot be allowed. No substance in this Appeal.
|