|
Advanced Search Options
Companies Law - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 512 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 882 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reconstruction in nature of ‘Slump Sale’ and amalgamation of the Residual Undertaking - Held that:- Considering the above facts and circumstances and taking into account all the contentions raised by the affidavits and reply affidavits, and the undertakings provided vide the additional affidavit dated 14th December 2016, and submissions made at the time of hearing, this Court is satisfied that the observations made by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, have been satisfactorily addressed. Hence, they no longer survive. This Court is of the view that the present Scheme of Arrangement appears to be in the interest of its shareholders and creditors as well as in the public interest. It, therefore, deserves to be sanctioned. Considering the above, the Scheme is hereby sanctioned.
-
2016 (12) TMI 691 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reduction of the share capital - Held that:- There is no objection to the reduction of the share capital to be allowed and approved by this Court under Section 100 of the Companies Act, 1956. The same is therefore allowed and the company petition is accordingly allowed.
The order including the minutes shall be delivered to the Registrar of Companies within twenty one days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The notice of reduction of paid-up equity share capital, shall be published by the petitioner company in the English Daily “The Hindu” and Kannada Daily ‘Udayavani’ Bengaluru edition within fifteen days from the date of registration of the order and minutes by the Registrar of Companies and a copy thereof shall be filed by the petitioner with the Registry.
-
2016 (12) TMI 690 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maintainability of application U/s. 543 of the Companies Act, 1956 - misfeasance, malfeasance or breach of trust - application barred by limitation - Held that:- The application under Section 543 of the Act of 1956 was admittedly filed on 6-3-2002 following the winding up order dated 20-3-1997-i.e. within five years of the winding up order. Section 543(2) of the Act of 1956, provides for a limitation of five years to file an application under Section 543(1) of the Act of 1956. And Section 458A of the Act of 1956 further excludes a period of one year from the date of winding up order in computing limitation under Section 543(2) thereof. The application under Section 543(1) of the Act of 1956 could have therefore been filed in fact within six years of the winding up order. It was in the instant case thus filed within limitation
Winding up - respondents directors Jointly and severally liable to compensate and or to contribute to the applicant company - Held that:- Evidence on record establish that the respondent directors thus cannot be held responsible for unaccounted inventory. It was further pointed out that as against the specific case and evidence in support thereof by the respondents, it is not the OL’s case that the inventories of the company in liquidation were not available at site when possession of land, building, plant, machinery and raw materials was taken by RIICO on 3-9-1996. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari submitted that none from RIICO has been produced by the OL to prove the said fact to controvert the evidence of Shri Sanjay Jain in regard thereto.
The evidence of Dw.1 Mr. Sanjay Jain remained unshaken. And the evidence of the OL’s witnesses which included himself and the Chartered Accountant remained confined to accounts reflected in the company's books of account and the Statement of Affairs submitted by the Directors of the Company in liquidation on 28-9-2001. Based thereon inference of liability of the respondent directors was sought to be drawn.In the evidence on record, issues deserve to be decided in favour of the respondent directors and against the Official Liquidator.
Allegation of non recovery of an amount towards security deposit, security for Oxygen cylinder and security pledged with the Sales Tax Department - Held that:- Ex.A-8 and A-9 filed by the respondent Directors and proved by Dw.1 Mr. Sanjay Jain, indicates that the said amount along with interest aggregating to ₹ 6500/- has been deposited with the OL through receipt No.1349 dated 12-9-2002. Therefore, this issue deserves to be decided against the OL and in favour of the respondents directors.
Allegations of misfeasance and/ or breach of trust by respondent directors on the basis of the report by the Chartered Accountant - whether on the evidences of the OL a case against the respondent directors under Section 543(1) of the Act of 1956 is made out - Held that:- no specific evidence obtains on record against any of the respondent directors having misappropriated or otherwise having wrongly acted or omitted to act to cause loss to the company in liquidation to their corresponding enrichment/ benefit or otherwise. In fact no allegation of the respondent- directors benefitting personally from the assets of the company has been at all made by the OL. In fact, the Chartered Accountant in his report dated 27-12-2001 which is the basis of this application under Section 543 of the Act of 1956 has stated that no dishonesty in the affairs of the company can be attributed to the directors of the company. Only because the respondents were the Directors of the company as on date of passing of winding up order, it is presumed that they were in possession of the properties and records of the company in liquidation. Non accounting of which to the OL’s satisfaction tantamounts to their being fastened with damages/ liability under Section 543(1) of the Act of 1956. That is impermissible. No liability on the rebound is contemplated under Section 543 of the Act of 1956. Concrete positive evidence at the instance of OL and his witnesses is mandatory. Unless that burden has been discharged no liability on the directors can accrue. This has not been done in the instant case. Thus no case of misfeasance, malfeasance or breach of trust is made out against the respondents Sanjay Jain, Abhay Jain and Ajay Jain Ex-Directors of the company M/s. San India Electro Chem Private Limited (in liquidation).
-
2016 (12) TMI 628 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- Scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and does not appear to be violative of any provisions of law or contrary to public policy.
Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, scheme is hereby allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 627 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Winding up petition - inability to pay debts - Held that:- From the facts and material on record, it is fully established that goods (HR Coils) were indeed supplied to the respondent-Company and admittedly receipted by it. Payment thereof by way of a cheque issued was not made for reason of the cheque being dishonoured. The respondent- Company vide letter dated 10-1-2013 undertook to make the requisite payment by 20-1-2013. The promised payment was not made. A debt thus obtained. As earlier held the said debt is not disputed on any substantial and bonafide grounds. The disputes to the debt due as raised in the reply to the winding up petition are a mere after thought and without substance. Aside of the aforesaid, in any event, admittedly goods receipted or part thereof retained was more than ₹ 1 lac. They were dishonestly not returned and instead disposed of in the market. The sale price was appropriated by the respondent company most dishonestly. The statutory notice under Section 432(1)(a) of the Act of 1956 was not replied to. The defence to the winding up petition is of no substance, wholly contrived, mere moonshine, a sham and not bonafide.
On 27-5-2016, the respondent company was directed to file statement of affairs of the company. That has still not been filed. Thereafter vide order dated 16-9-2016 while deciding the application under Section 450 of the Act of 1956 the Official Liquidator attached to this court was appointed as provisional Liquidator of the respondent company with a direction to take possession of the assets, both movable and immovable, of the respondent company. The Official Liquidator was also authorised to exercise powers under section 457(1) of the Act of 1956. The respondent company was also directed to file statement of affairs of the company under pain of contempt. Even the said direction to file the state of affairs has again gone abegging.
Thus the respondent company M/s. Shiv Mahima Ispat Private Limited is directed to be wound up. The Official Liquidator is appointed as the Liquidator of the respondent company under Section 448 of the 1956 Act. He shall take steps to take possession of the immovable and movable assets of the respondent company, if not so already done. The Directors of the respondent company are again directed to file statement of affairs of the respondent company before the Official Liquidator as statutorily required and also put on record their correct addresses.
-
2016 (12) TMI 421 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Creation of mortgage of the property and fixed assets - mortgage by the Respondents over the assets of the First Respondent Company to secure a loan/credit facility to an extent of ₹ 5,95,76,764 - Held that:- Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 7 have a common stand as against the notice issued by the Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2012. To that extent during March, 2015 and thereafter till filing of Writ Petition in the High Court, there was no conflict of interest among the Directors, including petitioners and the Respondents 2 to 7. The conflict has cropped up only after dismissal of the Writ Petition by the High Court of Allahabad. It is an admitted fact that Bank has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the proceedings are pending there. We therefore, are constrained to infer that this Tribunal's jurisdiction is invoked by the parties under section 397 and 398 of the Act to foil the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
This Tribunal for the aforesaid reasons, find that it cannot be declared as such that the mortgage of the Company's property in favour of Bank of Baroda, the 8th Respondent herein, was unlawful, illegal, null and void, as claimed by the petitioners. We place on record that our observations, if any, would not stand in the way of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide the validity of mortgage, if raised before it, in accordance with law.
It is suggested to the Respondent No. 8 Bank to take initiative to pursue the Company to hold Annual General Meeting and get ratification for the authorisation given to the Directors to create mortgage over the assets of the Company towards corporate guarantee. We are alive to the fact that there is conflict among the directors and therefore, it is necessary to place this subject in the agenda before the AGM. - Decided against petitioner.
Unlawful appointment of directors in the meeting of the Board - Held that:- The letters of appointment issued to the Respondents 5 to 7 are in pages 364, 365 and 366 of the Petitioner's paper book and these letters are not disputed by the respondents. These documents show that the Respondents 5 to 7 are appointed as 'Directors' and not as 'Additional Directors'. In From DIR-12 (page No. 352 of the Petitioners' paper Book) also shows that it is appointment of 'Director'. This is therefore clearly in defiance of Sec. 260 of the Act, in as much of the Board of Directors has no power and authority to appoint Directors. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Respondents 5 to 7 are appointed as Additional Directors and later appointed as Directors in the annual general meeting of members. In view of the precedent reported in Varshaben S Trivedi vs. Shree Sadguru Switchgears Pvt Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 1070 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI) we hold that the appointment of Respondents 5 to 7 as Directors of the Company is unauthorized, and against the provisions of law and thus, is liable to be set aside.- Decided in favour of the petitioners.
-
2016 (12) TMI 367 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Neglect to discharge of debt payable under a loan transaction - winding up petition - Held that:- The explanation offered by the company of a sale transaction and that the parties proceeded on a misconception that the area is larger than 2.73 acres and, accordingly, an excess amount was paid by the petitioning creditor which subsequently on ascertainment of the actual area was refunded without refund of the excess stamp duty and registration cost paid is difficult to accept. The survey alleged to have been conducted on 28th May, 2004 without notice to the petitioner.
The consideration for sale of land was paid by separate cheque subsequent to the loan transaction. If the contention of the company were to be accepted then there would be no requirement to issue separate cheques on 15th April, 2014 and May 30, 2014 for ₹ 48,00,000/- and ₹ 1,74,000/-. The said sum of ₹ 1.90 crores ought to have been mentioned in the Memo of Consideration. The necessity to prepare a survey report allegedly on 28th May, 2014 without notice to the petitioner and significantly coinciding with the date of execution of the sale deed is something more that it meets the eyes. The survey report was not at all necessary or required as the recitals of the sale deed would clearly show that the vendor purchased 2.73 acres of land on 14th December, 2005. The very fact that the said sum of ₹ 1.90 Crores was not mentioned in the Memo of Consideration in the sale deed shows that the parties never intended to treat the said amount as sale consideration.
Accordingly, the company upon making payment of a sum of ₹ 86 lakhs to the petitioner and furnishing cash security for a sum of ₹ 52 lakhs in favour of the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta within a period of four weeks from date with intimation to the petitioner shall be entitled to stay of winding up petition and the petitioning creditor would be required to file a suit for the remaining balance amount of ₹ 52 lakhs together with interest within a period of four weeks thereafter. However, if the petitioner fails to institute such proceeding notwithstanding the compliance of this order by the company, the Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta shall refund the said amount together with interest of the company on payment without any further reference. The Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Calcutta shall deposit the said amount with the United Bank of India, High Court Branch in a suitable fixed deposit account yielding highest return and shall keep the said account renewed till the disposal of the suit.
-
2016 (12) TMI 366 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - non admitting the liability to pay the remaining amount - winding up petition - Held that:- The petition deserves to be dismissed because of the disputed questions of fact about the deliver of goods purchased by the respondent for which the Division Bench has held that if the triable issues are raised, the summary jurisdiction of the Company Court cannot be invoked in order to compel the company to pay the amount on pain of being wound up.
-
2016 (12) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Composite Scheme of Arrangement - Held that:- The requirements of the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 are satisfied. The Scheme appears to be genuine and bonafide and in the interest of the shareholders and creditors. This Court, therefore, allows the Petitions and approves the Scheme, which includes reductions of the securities premium account of Montecarlo Limited. The Scheme is hereby sanctioned. The prayers made in the respective Company Petitions are granted.
-
2016 (12) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Entitlement to the beneficial ownership of the shares or securities to nominee of a holder of shares or securities - Transfer of shares - Nomination of shares - whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited and Others [2010 (4) TMI 614 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY ] that since the nomination is shown to be correctly made by assessee's husband who was the holder of the Suit shares, the Plaintiff would have no right to get the shares of her deceased husband sold or to otherwise deal with the same is correct? - Held that:- There is no material difference between Subsection (3) of Section 109A of the Companies Act and Subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 as well as Subsection (2) of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which start with nonobstante clause and seek to provide that nomination will override the disposition whether testamentary or otherwise. The said provisions seek to exclude all other persons except the nominee.
Section 109B of the Companies Act does not advance the case of the Appellants any further. Section 109B does not suggest that on nomination being made by a deceased shareholder of a Company, his nominee becomes the owner of the shares to the exclusion of all other legal heirs.
In the present case, we find that the provisions of Section 109A and in particular Subsection (3) thereof are not materially different from the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959. Subsection (2) of Section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is also similar to Subsection (2) of Section 109B. The same is the case with Byelaw 9.11 of the Depositories Act,1996. Even assuming that the format of the nomination requires attestation as required by a will under the Indian Succession Act,1925, the nomination does not become a testamentary disposition. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Ashwani Kumar and Others [2015 (11) TMI 1610 - SUPREME COURT] is of no help to the Appellants.
The nominee does not get absolute title to the property subject matter of the nomination. The reason is by its very nature, when a share holder or a deposit holder or an insurance policy holder or a member of a Cooperative Society makes a nomination during his life time, he does not transfer his interest in favour of the nominee. It is always held that the nomination does not override the law in relation to testamentary or intestate succession. The provisions regarding nomination are made with a view to ensure that the estate or the rights of the deceased subject matter of the nomination are protected till the legal representatives of the deceased take appropriate steps. None of the provisions of the aforesaid Statutes providing for nominations deal with the succession, testamentary or nontestamentary.
The object of the provisions of the Companies Act is not to either provide a mode of succession or to deal with succession. The object of the Section 109A is to ensure that the deceased shareholder is represented by some one as the value of the shares is subject to market forces. Various advantages keep on accruing to shareholders.
We hold that there was no reason to take a view which is contrary to the view taken in the long line of the decisions of the Apex Court on interpretation of provisions regarding nominations. Hence, the view taken in Kokate's case is not correct. We answer the first question in the negative.
Also the issue of the effect of nomination made by the testator cannot be gone into by the Testamentary Court in the probate proceedings.
-
2016 (12) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT
Guilty of contravening the provisions of Regulation 22(7) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 - whether the words 'Memorandum of Understanding' are not words of Art conveying a single meaning? - Held that:- In the present case, while Burren was the acquirer, UBL was the person acting in concert. This is evident from the letter of offer (public announcement) dated 15th February, 2005. The embargo under Section 22(7) is both on the acquirer and a person acting in concert. The expression 'person acting in concert' includes a corporate entity [Regulation 2(1)(e)(2)(i) of the Regulations] and also its directors and associates [Regulation 2(1)(e)(2)(iii) of the Regulations]. If this is what is contemplated under the Regulations we do not see how the first argument advanced by Shri Divan on behalf of the respondents can have our acceptance.
Insofar as the second argument advanced by Shri Divan is concerned it is correct that in the definition of 'offer period' contained in Regulation 2(1)(f) of the Regulations, relevant for the present case, a concluded agreement is not contemplated to be the starting point of the offer period. But such a consequence must naturally follow once the offer period commences from the date of entering into a Memorandum of Understanding which, in most cases would reflect an agreement in principle falling short of a binding contract. If the offer period can be triggered of by an understanding that is yet to fructify into an agreement, we do not see how the same can be said not to have commenced/started from the date of a concluded agreement i.e. share purchase agreement as in the present case.
Thus we will have to hold that the learned Tribunal was incorrect in reaching its impugned conclusions and in reversing the order of the Adjudicating Officer. Consequently the order of the learned Tribunal is set aside and that of the Adjudicating Officer is restored. The penalty awarded by the Adjudicating Officer by order dated 25th August, 2006 shall be deposited in the manner directed within two months from today.
-
2016 (12) TMI 254 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of amalgamation - Held that:- Petitioners complied with the order of publication and service. The affidavit for publication and service of notices came to be filed. The notices of the petitions came to be served on the Regional Director on 18th August, 2016 and the Official Liquidator on 17th August, 2016. Notices of the petitions came to be published in the English Daily newspaper, “Business Standard” and the Gujarati Daily newspaper, “Jai Hind”, both Ahmedabad Editions on 06.08.2016. The affidavit of compliance dated 10.10.2016, came to be filed.
Upon service of notice, the Regional Director filed a common affidavit dated 25.10.2016. The Official Liquidator filed separate reports dated 16.11.2016, in the petitions of the Transferor companies.
In respect of the compliance of Accounting Standard 14, as observed in the affidavit of Regional Director at paragraph 2(d), the petitioner of Transferee Company has filed an affidavit dated 24.11.2016, undertaking to comply with the Accounting Standard 14 and has submitted that, the excess of assets over liabilities, if any, shall be credited to the Amalgamation Reserve Account being of Capital Reserve nature and the shortfall, if any, shall be debited to the Goodwill Account. It is also undertaken that, the reserve so created, if any, shall not be available for distribution of dividend and the petitioner will comply with the Accounting Standard 14. Further the petitioners also undertake to comply with the Income Tax Act and Rules.
Also as in the same affidavit at paragraph 2 clarified that, there are no Secured and Unsecured Creditors in the respective companies and the Petitioners have produced the certificates of the Chartered Accountant with the respective applications and upon considering the averments and submissions, the order came to be passed, dispensing with the meeting of the Equity Shareholders. There is no requirement for convening and holding the meetings of the Creditors, as there are none. There are neither Secured nor Unsecured Creditors in either of the companies and hence, there is no requirement of either obtaining consent letters or convening the meetings.
The petitioners also undertake to maintain the books, accounts, registers and shall comply with the law and shall not dispose of the books and accounts without the prior approval of the Central Government. 8. Considering the explanation in the affidavit, there is no requirement for convening and holding of the meetings of the Secured and Unsecured Creditors or obtaining consent letters, as there are no creditors in either of the Companies.
It is, however, directed that, the petitioner company shall preserve its books of accounts, papers and records and not dispose of the records without the prior permission of the Central Government, as per the provisions of Section 396(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and shall not be absolved from any statutory liability.
Considering the above, it is ordered that, the Scheme at Exhibit “C” to the petitions, is hereby sanctioned and the prayers made in the Company Petitions are granted.
-
2016 (12) TMI 187 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of demerger - Held that:- Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the Scheme and the proceedings, it appears that the requirements of the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 are satisfied. The Scheme appears to be genuine and bonafide and in the interest of the shareholders and creditors. This Court, therefore, accordingly allows the Company Petitions and approves the Scheme, which includes reductions of the paid up equity share capital and paid up preference share capital of the Demerged Company. The Scheme is hereby sanctioned. Thee prayers made in the respective Company Petitions are granted.
The petitions are allowed accordingly.
-
2016 (12) TMI 186 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
Compounding for violation of provisions of section 299 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that:- Considering the documents filed, report of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka. Bengaluru and submissions made by the Practicing Company Secretary we are of the opinion that violation can be compounded by levying the compounding fee . As in pursuant to our Order dated 17/09/2016 mentioned herein above, the Applicants have paid the compounding fee by depositing Demand Draft for ₹ 1,13,400/- (Rupees One lakh thirteen thousand four hundred only) of City Bank, Bangalore drawn on 23/09/2016 in favour of ''Pay and Accounts Officer, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, payable at par".
As the compounding fee has been remitted by the Applicants, the offence stated in the petition is compounded. A copy of this Order be sent to Registrar of Companies, Karnataka. Bengaluru for appropriate action.
-
2016 (12) TMI 126 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of amalgamation - Held that:- Pursuant to the report of the Official Liquidator, it is ordered that, the petitioner company shall preserve its books of accounts, papers and records and not dispose of the records without the prior permission of the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 396(A) of the Companies Act, 1956, and shall not be absolved from any statutory liability. Considering the above, it is ordered that, the Scheme at Exhibit “C” to the petitions, is hereby sanctioned and the prayers made in all the Company Petitions are granted.
The petitioners are directed to pay the professional charges of ₹ 7,500/for each petitions to Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the petitioners of the Transferor Companies are directed to pay the the professional charges of ₹ 7,500/each to the Official Liquidator.Filing and issuance of drawn up orders are dispensed with.
-
2016 (12) TMI 125 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of amalgamation - Held that:- The observations made by the Regional Director and the Official Liquidator stand substantially addressed and hence, there does not appear to be any impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation, inasmuch as from the material on record and on a perusal of the Scheme, the Scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law. Nor is it contrary to public policy. As noticed earlier, none has come forward to oppose the Scheme. All requisite statutory compliances have also been substantially fulfilled.
This court is, therefore, satisfied that the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation amongst the Petitioner companies deserves to be granted. The Scheme of Amalgamation is hereby sanctioned. The same shall be binding upon all the Equity Shareholders, Secured Creditors, Unsecured Creditors of the petitioner Companies and all other agencies, departments and authorities of the Central, State and any other local authorities.
It is ordered that as required under section 396A of the Companies Act, 1956, the Transferor Company shall not dispose of, or destroy, their books of accounts and other connected papers without the prior consent of the Central Government and shall preserve the same.
-
2016 (12) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Permission to sell the property - relaxation of condition to enable the Saharas to sell the properties at a price less than the circle rates - Held that:- We direct that the interim arrangement made by our Orders dated 06.05.016 and 11.05.2016 shall continue till 06.02.2017 subject to the Saharas depositing in the Sahara SEBI Refund Account a further amount of ₹ 600,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six hundred crores only). Needless to say, in case the deposit is not made, the contemnors shall be committed to prison as before.
We are not for the present inclined to modify the direction already issued by us as to the rate at which the Saharas shall sell their properties. We, however, make it clear that in any given case, if there is a proposal to sell any item at a price less than 90% of the circle rate, the Saharas shall be free to apply for permission of the Court in which event this Court would pass appropriate orders after hearing learned counsel for SEBI.
As SEBI submits that the Saharas are permitted to sell the property situate at Bahriach. Applicant in I.A. Nos. 212-214 who happened to be the purchaser of the said property, according to Mr. Datar, had offered to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 20,25,00,000/- towards the sale consideration with SEBI on or before 20.11.2016. He submits that the needful has not been done by the purchaser and that the Saharas ought to deposit the balance amount, if they have received the same or refrain from executing the sale deed. Mr. Sibal seeks time to verify the facts and to take necessary steps for ensuring deposit of the balance sale consideration in the SEBI account. He is given four weeks' time for the purpose. In case the sale deed has not been executed by the Saharas in favour of the purchaser of the Bahriach property, no sale deed shall be executed unless the deposit of the amount is ensured.
-
2016 (12) TMI 62 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Enhancement of time for liquidating the liability under the fixed deposits accepted but are unable to repay the proceeds on account of acute financial crises - Held that:- The proposal of the petitioner company for enhancement of time for repayment of the matured deposits in a phased manner over a period of 24 months from the due date is being accepted in principle only in view of their past track record. However, it is also subject to their adherence to the schedule submitted in Court. It therefore becomes imperative to review and accord extension quarterly in terms of the above.
The petitioners have also undertaken that in addition to the above schedule they would be making provisions of ₹ 60 lacs per quarter towards Hardship cases. The Company Secretary, its V.P. Finance as well as the Counsel for the petitioner shall review the Hardship applications received every three months. The final disbursal of this Hardship cases shall be on approval of this Bench.
The compliance report shall be placed before this Bench for review and quarterly extension of time in terms of the proposal accepted by this Bench today. The same shall be annexed with a certified copy of this order. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed within two weeks of expiry of every quarter for further extension giving the names of all depositors whose liability/extent of liability has been extinguished and/or their remaining liability together with the amount of the next/remaining installment due and the next date on which they are likely to receive further installment of their money.
-
2016 (12) TMI 2 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Rejection of CFSL reports - difference between an 'expert' and a 'witness of fact' - Held that:- Placing non-reliance upon the expert's opinion is the final outcome of appreciation thereof in the light of other evidence, circumstances etc., to be done at the final stage of the matter. His report has no value as such without his oral evidence. There is no necessity of expressing an opinion about the reliability of the report at this stage and reject the same at the threshold. If it is done at this stage and the report is expunged from the record, the party in whose favour the opinion is expressed by the expert would be put to disadvantage. If at all the expert is examined by the opposite party to prove the contents of the report, then it is open to the petitioner to raise the same objections raised now, to demolish the reliability of the expert opinion and his evidence. We are, therefore, not impressed with the sustainability of the relief claimed in this petition.
-
2016 (11) TMI 1725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - return of packet with the endorsement "unclaimed" - good service of statutory notice or not - HELD THAT:- There is a well-established presumption that the return of packet with the endorsement "unclaimed" is good service. Obviously, this means that an intimation of the packet was left with the Defendant at Navi Mumbai address and the Defendant was required to claim that packet. This is settled by a long line of authority on an interpretation of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
The Defendant has been properly served in view of the substituted service effected in Gurgaon; and, in any event, the presumption against the Defendant regarding service being effected in Navi Mumbai must also be drawn since the packet was properly despatched as required through the Sheriff's office and has been returned 'unclaimed'.
List the Suit for ex parte decree on 9th December 2016.
........
|
