Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

SOM DISTILLERIES and BREWERIES LTD Versus MADHYA PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONAL LIMITED

2013 (5) TMI 959 - DELHI HIGH COURT

CO.APP. 31/2013 - Dated:- 29-5-2013 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA For the Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava and Mr. Harmeet Roprah, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate. O R D E R CM No.8939/2013 (Exemption) in CO.APP. 31/2013 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM No.8940/2013 (Stay) in CO.APP. 31/2013 1. This is an appeal impugning t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant company. 2. The respondents between the period 24.11.1998 and 11.01.2000 by way of inter-corporate deposits sanctioned and disbursed a total amount of ₹ 7 Crores as loan to the appellant. 3. The appellant allege to have suffered set backs on account of change in excise policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh and, thus, defaulted in repayment of the loan. 4. The respondents on 30.11.2007 sent a statutory notice under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act to the appellant requiri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

really followed by actual payments and, as such, the appellant kept on passing time and revising the proposals. 7. The appellant, pending the proceedings before the Company Court, approached the respondents for a one time settlement of their dues. On 12.04.2012, the appellant enclosed an interest calculation sheet showing an amount of ₹ 7.77 Crores as payable to the respondents and it even offered a sum of ₹ 77,77,000/- towards 10% down payment from the OTS. The 10% amount was sought .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s sought to be adjusted by the appellant had, in fact, been adjusted against interest dues and, as such, could not be considered as part of the one time settlement amount and the cheque of ₹ 2,70,000/- was not being deposited in the account of the respondents. The proposal of settlement submitted by the appellant was considered even without the down payment of 10% of the settlement amount. The letter of 10.05.2012 was without prejudice and required the appellant to make the payment immedia .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

75 Lakhs, there was no concensus between the parties. 10. On 16.07.2012, before the Company Court, the parties sought to resolve the disputes and the appellant sought to offer to the respondents a sum of ₹ 6,92,87,036/-, which as per the appellant was inclusive of interest. The said offer was not acceptable to the respondents, however, the counsel sought time to take appropriate instructions. The counsel for the appellant offered to bring the amount of ₹ 6,92,87,036/- to Court on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hs out of the amount of ₹ 7,77,66,667/-. It was clarified by the Hon?ble Court that in case no settlement was arrived at, the matter would be heard on merits. 13. On 25.04.2013, the counsel for the appellant offered to pay a sum of ₹ 6,92,87,036/- to the respondents. However, counsel for the respondents declined to accept the said amount and made a one last offer to the appellant to pay to the respondents a sum of ₹ 7,52,66,667/-. The said offer of the respondents was declined .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the respondents vide their letter dated 10.05.2012, the respondent was now estopped from claiming any amount over and above the amount mentioned in the OTS after adjusting the said sum of ₹ 75 Lakhs. 16. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant for the reason that as per the respondents the amount which was due as on 31.12.2010 was over ₹ 48 Crores and the offer accepting the OTS at ₹ 774.08 Lakhs was a one time offer subject to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version