TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-in-liquidation, at that point in time, was put on the appellant. The appellant, clearly, tarried and did not show enough alacrity to file a revival scheme - this state of affairs continued to operate, even after the appellant had obtained an order dated 31.01.2018, whereby the OL was directed to grant the appellant, access to the records of the company-in-liquidation. Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- The amount deposited by the appellant was not a debt owed to him. Therefore, no case for payment of interest was made out having regard to the parameters. Even in equity, the appellant in this case would not be entitled to interest, as he failed to present a scheme before the learned company judge, with the result that the liquidation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reviving the company in issue i.e., Bharat Foam Udyog Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the company-in-liquidation. 4.1 For this purpose, an application was moved by the appellant, which was numbered as CA No. 4480/2016. 5. The impugned order i.e., order dated 29.04.2022 has been passed in CA No. 273/2022. 5.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the fact, that the learned Company Judge has granted him partial relief i.e., directed only the refund of the aforementioned amount, without directing payment of interest, which evidently, has accrued on the said amount. 6. Mr Pradeep Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that the said amount was deposited, pursuant to the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by this Court. 7. It is Mr Aggarwal s s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld private limited company i.e., Faridabad Metal Udyog Ltd. [ FMUL ] was occupying a portion of the land, which was owned by the company-in- liquidation. 9. Mr Aggarwal, at this stage, intercedes and says that the aforementioned company i.e., FMUL was a lesseee of the company-in- liquidation. 10. Mr Aggarwal has also drawn our attention to the order dated 31.01.2018, passed in CA No. 1244/2017, whereby one of us [Rajiv Shakdher, J.] sitting as the Company Judge, had via the aforesaid order directed the OL to grant access to the appellant, as regards the records of the company-in-liquidation. 10.1 Mr Aggarwal says, that despite this order, no access was granted. 11. On being queried, as to why an appropriate application was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quidation to file the statement of affairs, within twenty-one days from the said date. 19. Therefore, the onus, as regards the affairs of the company-in-liquidation, at that point in time, was put on the appellant. The appellant, clearly, tarried and did not show enough alacrity to file a revival scheme. 19.1 This state of affairs continued to operate, even after the appellant had obtained an order dated 31.01.2018, whereby the OL was directed to grant the appellant, access to the records of the company-in-liquidation. 20. Insofar as the interest is concerned, it is payable if there is statutory enactment i.e., substantive law to that effect, or if trade, usage, custom or practice, which is enforceable in law mandates the grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ney, 3 and thus should be compensated by way of interest. Thus, even on equitable grounds (which we suspect is the ground that is sought to be propounded by Mr Agarwal, although the submission made before us is not articulated in those very words) no interest can be granted to the appellant, as he contributed to the delay in having the aforesaid company liquidated. 21. Clearly, the record seems to suggest that the appellant did not show enough keenness in taking the matter forward concerning submission of the revival scheme. 22. As alluded to above, the reason articulated before us, that complete information was not available for filing a scheme, appears to be a ruse for explaining the lack of alacrity and keenness. 23. Thus, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
