TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification they have deposited the money primary company petition (sic). It is very clear that the applicant has not deposited the amount pursuant to any invitation made by the company. However, for inviting any public deposit. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 and is misconceived - petition dismissed. - C. P. No. 76 /BB/ 2017. - - - Dated:- 6-12-2018 - Rajeswara Rao Vittanala Judicial Member And Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra Technical Member For the Petitioner : Abhijit Atur with Ms. Akhila M. S For the Respondent : Peter Pushparaj , J. M. D. ORDER DR. ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA (TECHNICAL MEMBER). - 1. C. P. No. 76/BB/ 2017 is filed by Dr. Lohith Shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otted to the depositor for the amount invested in the company. The company had also promised to give return on the amounts advanced by the depositor. (3) However, in spite of various assurances, the company had failed to repay the amounts borrowed from the depositor. Thereafter, on the legal advice received by the depositor and on realizing that the amounts advanced by the depositor would be considered as deposit by virtue of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the depositor lodged a com plaint with the Registrar of Companies for violation of section 73 of the Companies Act, 2013. (4) They have also made that the Registrar of Companies vide letter dated September 1, 2016 informed the depositor about the response filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , as per section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013, deposit includes any receipt of money by way of deposit or loan or in any other form by a company. Therefore, from the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the rules made thereunder, it is under that the amount received by the company by the depositor is in the nature of deposits. 3. The respondent has filed a counter dated November 13, 2017 by, inter alia, contending the petition is not maintainable since the petitioner neither given any deposit nor attached any deposit receipt by the company. The amount they have stated to have given to the company was only towards business investment as a business partner specifically for the establishment of long-term project namely Primary Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt amount is towards deposit. Hence, learned counsel urged the Tribunal to allow the petition. 7. Shri Peter Pushparaj, managing director of the company, who appears in person today made a submission that the amount taken by the company was only towards business investment as a business partner specifically for the establishment of long-term project namely Primary Community Healthcare centre at Murugeshpalya, Bangalore by way of arrangement with the company and he made a submission that the amount was not at all towards deposit as that deposit they were supposed to follow the provisions of section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. 8. The petitioner has not given all the material facts with regard to the invoking of section 73 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hereby deny the allegations made by him in his complaint dated July 1, 2016 which are baseless. They have also stated that they have communicated to the petitioner to come for any settlement agreement. However, the petitioner is not interested to settle the issue rather than making the dispute. The another complaint dated September 14, 2016 was given by the petitioner to the Registrar of Companies. It is pertinent to note that the money so received by the company from the petitioners are deposits by virtue of the provisions of section 2(31) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 2014. The company, being a private limited company, ought not to have accepted deposits from the unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
