9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows: 3.1 It is the allegation of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that in the year 2008, on the representation of one Dr. Rajesh Aeren, the Managing Director (MD) of respondent No.3 Company, they decided to invest in a commercial project called Festival City Mall at G.T. Road (National Highway No. 1), Ludhiana, Punjab, being launched by respondent No. 3 Company. In furtherance of the project, a term loan of Rs. 100 Crore was also availed from a consortium of banks. The interest of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was limited to 46% of the project, which now stands at 30%. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were assured of returns with effect from 1st August 2008, failing which respondent No. 3 and its Directors were to be jointly and severally liable to pay interest @ 2.15% per annum on the amount remaining unpaid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were collectively allocated 17 shops in the project. 3.2 The project, however, ran into trouble and the construction was stalled. Neither the possession was offered nor was the assured return or the interest thereon given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3.3 The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in the year 2009 filed a winding up petition, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investors to four intermediate companies, i.e. Aeren R. Enterprise, Everest Buildwell, Global Distributors and AR Developers, who, in turn, further transferred the money to the consortium of six land owning companies. These six land-owning companies were, allegedly, related party Companies of respondent No. 3. It was further alleged that these six related party Companies had then purchased the subject land for the Project Mall. Vide interim orders dated 11th July 2018 and 16th August 2018, the Single Judge of the High Court restrained the six companies from transferring, selling or alienating the properties till further orders. 3.8 Aggrieved by the same, the appellant as well as respondent No.4 herein preferred applications for vacation of the aforesaid interim orders which were allowed by the Single Judge vide order dated 21st February 2019. It may be noted that, by the same order, Ellahi Goel and Co., Charted Accountants were appointed as 'Charted Accountants' to carry out an audit of the books of accounts of respondent no. 3 Company to look into the allegations made in the Company Application. 3.9 Aggrieved by the vacation of the interim orders, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1 and 2, the Company Petitioners, is hardly a few crores. He submits that, for a paltry amount claimed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the entire project admeasuring 115 acres has been entirely stalled, thereby blocking the entire investment of the present appellant. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, ex abundanti cautela, the learned Single Judge of the High Court himself had protected the interest of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by observing that in case anything contrary is discovered in the course of the audit, the Official Liquidator was free to file an appropriate application with regard to the properties. 9. Shri Sundaram, in the alternative, submits that the appellant is willing to give an undertaking, that it will not make any development for an area admeasuring 5 acres so as to protect the interests of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that the market value of the said area admeasuring 5 acres is about Rs.25 crores and in the event the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 succeed in the proceedings, the said amount would be sufficient to meet their claims. 10. Shri Sundaram further submitted that this Court in the case of Usha Ananthasubramanian v. Union of India (202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion with regard to the properties which were subject matter of Company Petition No.482 of 2009. 14. We do not find that, in the facts of the present case, it is necessary to go into the legal issues raised on behalf of the parties. 15. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No.4 that the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is hardly of a few crores, we had specifically put a query to Shri Vivek Kohli as to how much is the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submits that he is also appearing for the other defrauded investors apart from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the claim of all the claimants would run into Rs.31 crores approximately. 16. As already stated herein above, Shri Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel has made an alternative submission that the properties listed hereunder admeasuring approximately 5 acres has a present market value of approximately Rs.25 crores. Owner Name Mustil No./Khasra No. Land Area Mustil No. Khasra No. Kanal Marla Yashwardhan Infrastructure Developers Private Limited Village Bonkar Dogran, Tehsil & District Ludhiana- 141010, Punjab 25 17 8 0 25 22 1 6 25 23 7 7 25 24 7 7 Liwpool To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
