9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent to reimburse and compensate the petitioner, other lessors and all other affected persons for the pecuniary loss incurred or suffered on account of failure to pay lease rentals; 3. To appoint an administrator in respect of the affairs of the 1st respondent; 4. To appoint a Receiver for the 1st Respondent; and 5. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Bench may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of the Company and thus render justice." 2. The Petitioner herein also seeks the following interim reliefs pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition: "1. To grant an ad interim injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, their men, agents, servants, person or persons, claiming or acting through or under them for and on their behalf, from in any manner, whatsoever, further alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with the property stated to be in their possession, ending disposal of the petition; 2. To appoint an Administrator in respect of the affairs of the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the petition; 3. To appoint a Receiver for the 1st Respondent pending disposal of the petition; 4. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sified as "gambling" or a fame of "mere skill" and whether the activities of the club were to be prohibited under the relevant provisions of the Madras City Police (Amendment) Act, 1949 and the Madras City Police Gaming (Amendment) Act, 1955. The Petitioner has cited the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan V. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0309/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 226 in which, it was clarified that horse racing was not gaming or gambling but mere skill. 7. It was submitted by the Petitioner that as per Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) records, the 1st Respondent does not own any immovable property and that, on further inquiry, it was learnt that, they are in possession of, and occupying in the capacity as lessees, 160 acres of property belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu and 12.53 acres belonging to private parties. The 1st Respondent is stated to derive its income from commission from bookmakers, membership fee, usage fee of lodge, restaurant, bar, etc. 8. The Petitioner submitted that in the year 1986, the Government of Tami Nadu had enacted the Madras Race Club (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is 11500 crores and government value is 5000 Crores, for which also, the lease rentals have not been paid. It is averred in the Petition that, a mere perusal of the Balance sheets of the 1st Respondent would reveal that it has made a turnover of Rs. 995 crores in the FY 2018-19 but however, refuses to pay lease rentals. As on the date, the lease rentals due to the State Government is estimated to be approximately a sum of Rs. 1386.13 crores and lease rentals due to this Petitioner by virtue of being the legal heir of the owner/lessor, is a sum of Rs. 150 crores approximately. 11. It was further submitted that the 1st Respondent has filed several frivolous litigations and obtained ex-parte injunction orders from being evicted from the leased properties and that, in the pleadings of the said cases, the 1st Respondent admits that it is not the owner of any of the said properties and hence, the said fact is undisputed. Further, it was submitted that upon perusal of the balance sheets of the 1st Respondent for the past 10 financial years would further reveal that up to FY 2017-18, the value of land owned by it constantly appears to be a meagre sum of Rs. 85,000/-. However, in the FY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Service Tax and GST from 2006 as they had leased/sub-leased a land parcel to DLF where, DLF has been remitting periodically lease rent since June 2006 to the tune of Rs. 307.8 Crores. The GST/Service Tax for these have not been paid to the Government of India. 16. It was submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu through its Tahsildar has raised a claim against the 1st Respondent for unpaid lease rentals to the tune of Rs. 1386 crores for the year 2015-16. However, no coercive action has been taken against the 1st Respondent either towards the recovery or eviction. It is further averred that, the unlawful operations of the 1st Respondent have caused severe losses to the Government exchequer and general public. Further, it was submitted that the Petitioner that, has filed several RTI's with respect to the affairs of the 1st Respondent; however, no effective response has been received till date. 17. The Petitioner has submitted the following documents in relation to the facts above mentioned: (i) 10 years lease to MRC (ii) Will dated 24/02/1960 (iii) ULC Proceedings Urban Land Ceiling T. Nagar and final approve plan dated 16.03.1993 (iv) Patta Chitta Adangal of 2 Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the information with respect to its affairs which they might reasonably expect, including information relating to the calculation of the commission payable to a managing or other director, or the manager, of the company, order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, that the affairs of the company ought to be investigated by an inspector or inspectors appointed by the Central Government and where such an order is passed, the Central Government shall appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate into the affairs of the company in respect of such matters and to report thereupon to it in such manner as the Central Government may direct: Provided that if after investigation it is proved that-- (i) the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members or any other persons or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, or that the company was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose; or (ii) any person concerned in the formation of the company or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud, then, every officer of the company who is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng thereof to initiate the Investigation into the affairs of the 1st Respondent Company. As already stated in the preceding paragraphs the Petitioner has prima facie not made out a case for ordering investigation into the affairs of the Company. However, it is relevant to point out here that the allegations made in the Petition pertains to non payment of the lease dues to the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent Company and eventhough no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013, Section 433 of the Companies Act, 2013 contemplates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings or appeals before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. Under the said circumstances, the Petitioner has also miserably failed to explain the failed the insurmountable delay in filing the present petition. It is also seen that the Petitioner could not satisfy this Tribunal with documents in support of the allegations. Further no reasons are attributed for inordinate delay in filing this Application based on the cause of action occurred prior to 1996. Hence the petition is devoid of facts and not maintainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
