TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive the said debts or any part thereof from the Company and are also entitled to file the aforesaid Petition in its own name. 3. According to the Petitioners, the Company is indebted to the Petitioners for a sum of ₹ 2,46,05,783.27 (Rupees Two Crores Forty-Six Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Three and Twenty Seven Paise only) as on 31st January 2009 together with further interest thereon at the rate of 14% per annum at monthly rests from 1st February 2009 till payment and/or realisation. 4. According to the Petitioners, the Company had approached DBS with a request to grant Factoring facility/Overdraft facility. At the request of the Company, DBS processed the application in or about July 2007 and granted Factoring facility/ Overdraft facility of INR 2,50,00,000/ (Rupees Two Crores and Fifty Lacs Only) to the Company by its offer letter bearing No. CDT/ADMIN/157/2007 dated 18th July 2007 setting out the terms and conditions of the said facility. The Company accepted the terms and conditions of the said offer letter and in token of its acceptance signed the said offer letter. The sanction letter was placed before the Board of Directors of the Company and was app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27th June 2008 addressed to the Company and two letters dated 11th July 2008 addressed to the guarantors/promoters called upon them to regularise the account. 9. As the account of the Company was in financial doldrums, DBS through their Advocates notice dated 15th September 2008 called upon the Company to repay the amounts due and payable by the Company to DBS. Despite the receipt of the notice, the Company did not comply with the same and failed and neglected to make the payments of the amounts demanded by DBS. Thereafter, DBS filed an Original Application bearing No.27 of 2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal I, for recovery of an amount of ₹ 2,46,05,783.27 (Rupees Two Crores Forty Six Lacs Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Three and Twenty Seven Paise Only) as on 31st January 2009 together with further interest at the rate of 14% per annum from 1st February 2009 till the date of payment and/or realisation. The same is pending hearing and final disposal. 10. DBS vide a Deed of Assignment dated 9th December 2009 assigned the said debt due and payable by the Company in favour of the Petitioners along with all the underlying securities as mentioned hereinabove. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Reply. The Petition was, therefore, adjourned to 2nd September 2010.Thereafter, the Petition appeared before this Court on 20th October 2010 when the learned Advocate appearing for the Company informed the Court that the Company has not filed its Affidavit in reply and therefore, the Petition should be adjourned. Since no reply is forthcoming since the last four months, this Court declined to grant any further time and called upon the Petitioners to proceed with the matter. Since certain queries pertaining to the Accounts of the Company were put by this Court to the Advocate appearing for the Company, the learned Advocate informed the Court that the Petition be placed on 21st October 2010 to enable her Senior to appear in the matter and answer the said queries. The Petition was therefore, adjourned to 21st October 2010 i.e. today at 3.00 p.m. The learned Advocate for the Company was specifically told by this Court to keep a representative of the Company present in Court in order to assist the Advocate to answer any questions raised by the Court pertaining to the Accounts of the Company. 14. Today, Mr. S.M. Shah, Advocate has appeared for the Company. Though the request for an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments tendered in Court by the Petitioners, a copy of which was admittedly handed over to the Company as far back as on 26th August 2010, which shows that an amount of ₹ 2,46,05,783.27 is the balance outstanding as on 31st January 2009 payable by the Company to the Petitioners. Again, as submitted by the Petitioners, the Company has not responded to the letters dated 27th June 2008, 11th July 2008, 15th September 2008 and also the statutory notice dated 15th April 2010 which was received by the Company on 19th April 2010. The Company has also failed to file its reply in the last more than four months and has even today, made just a casual appearance and made all possible attempts to evade answering the questions put to the Company by this Court. In view thereof, the contents of the letters and statutory notice sent to the Company by the Petitioners have remained uncontroverted. The submissions of the Petitioners in the Company Petition have also remained uncontroverted. 16. Under the circumstances, the submission made on behalf of the Company that only an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/ is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioners is in my view, only a false preten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
