9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981. The scheme propounded under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was sanctioned by the company judge on March 1, 1983, to facilitate revival of the said company. It is stated that the order sanctioning the scheme provided for no alienation of immovable properties and the official liquidator was made as the observer to supervise and report on the progress of revival and implementation of the scheme. The consequence of this order was stated to be the stay of the winding up order. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the company was actually never revived in pursuance to the scheme and the official liquidator failed to report the non-revival 4. The appellant and his mother were the shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the court and was paid to the appellant and his mother. However, out of the said amount, a sum of rupees one lakh was retained for some time in view of the estate duty liability. 8. In so far as the appellant is concerned, the order dated July 26, 1996, passed by the learned company judge is stated to have recorded that the only dispute qua him which survived was whether he was entitled to a multiplier/interest on Rs. 50,000 for a period of 11 years or 6 years. On this aspect a decision was rendered against the appellant vide orders dated November 12, 2002, whereby it was held that the appellant was entitled to interest of Rs. 54,666 only as calculated by the Registry of this court. 9. The impugned order takes note of the allegations m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant and his mother had specifically agreed that the scheme would remain in operation. As to whether the scheme has been properly implemented or not and what is the consequence thereof would be for the learned company judge to consider. However, the appellant has no role to play in the same and the only entitlement of the appellant left was about the claim of some interest on an unpaid amount of Rs. 50,000 detained for estate duty clearance in respect of shares inherited by the said two persons. The appellant is now claiming to raise stale issues to put impediments possibly arising from the appreciation of the real estate value of the plots which were agreed to be sold. 12. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
