9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bench in CP No.2111/(MB)/2018. The Company Petition was relating to Application under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 which was filed by fixed deposit holders - M/s. Shilpa Sakharram Gawai and others against the Respondent Company. The fixed deposit holders want their money of fixed deposit returned and for the said purpose, the Petition was pending. It is stated that in the said Petition, the Respondent Company filed M.A. No.907 of 2019, copy of which is at Annexure R-4 (Diary No.13483), claiming that Canara Bank had appropriated Rs. 15.41 Crores, which had come as tax refund of TDS to the account of the Company held with Canara Bank, towards its outstanding dues of the Bank and that the Company intends to utilize Rs. 13.19 Cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .D. Holders. (iii) The HDFC Bank Authorities are hereby directed to convert the said account as referred supra into "Lien Account" which shall be in the nature of "Escrow Account" so that each withdrawal be monitored not to be used other than repayment/refund of F.D. Holders. (iv) M.A. No.907/2019 stands disposed of accordingly. Adjourned to 25.06.2019. (v) A Certified Copy of this Order to be served upon the Bank Authorities "DASTI" for their respective records." 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that against the present Respondent, M/s. Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. had moved winding up proceedings - Company Petition No.761/2015 with Company Petition No.861/2015 under the old Companies Act, 1956 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for both sides and going through the matter, it appears to us that by the Impugned Order under the Companies Act in a Petition pending under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, the NCLT could not have passed such Order directing the Bank to reverse the entry when the bank claims that it had dues of more than Rs. 30 Crores which were to be recovered from the Respondent Company. There appears no source of power giving jurisdiction to give such direction to the Bank in the facts of this matter. According to us, this Order needs to be set aside. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that Notice of Motion in Appeal (L) No.126 of 2018 is pending. In this view of the matter, keeping in view Section 283 of the Companies A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
