The company Counsel has not appeared. His proxy has appeared reporting that the company was able to deposit only Rs. 9 lakhs and the balance of Rs. 41 lakhs could not be paid as mentioned in the order dated 22.4.2016.
2. This Bench has till date passed several orders extending time to complete repayment of Rs. 2 crores out of Rs. 10.26 crores fixed deposits overdue to the depositors as per the orders passed on 15.10.2015. But the company, every time when it comes for repayment, the counsel starts seeking time by depositing Rs. 10-20 lakhs by doing so, the company dragged on the repayment for more than five months from the date of order for payment of Rs. 2 crores. In fact, this Bench ordered on 15-10-2015 directing the company to repay Rs. 2 crores by the end of December 2015. However this Bench kept on adjourning hoping that if these Rs. 2 crores come from the company, at least some of the depositors would get the money due to them.
3. It is needless to say that Section 74(2) of Companies Act, 2013 is a provision enabling the companies to make repayment to the depositors on extension of time, but the companies are not expected to remain defaulters forever under the cover of 74(2) of the Companies Act 2013.
4. Had this Bench passed orders on hearing the arguments from the company side, it would be understandable that the company's financial position is not commensurate to the payment directions given by this Bench. There the counsel appearing on behalf of the Company kept on saying that the company would abide by the order of this Bench, in spite of it, the company failed to complete payment of Rs. 2 crores in five months.
5. To see it conic to the depositors, this Bench has made every effort to accommodate the company hoping that the depositors would get money if extension was given, but the company resorted to part payments of Rs. 10-15 lacs out of Rs. 2 crores perhaps believing that the company could keep dragging time in making repayment of Rs. 2 crores itself.
6. The company must realize that if an undertaking, given by the party or the counsel appearing on behalf of the company, is flouted, then it will tantamount to Contempt of Court.
7. However, for there being a provision to take action under the Statue against the defaulter u/s. 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, this Petition is hereby dismissed asking the RoC concerned to lake appropriate action against this company.
8. If any money that has come into the Account in pursuance of the orders of this Bench, and the same is not yet disbursed to the depositors, the Hardship Committee is hereby directed to disburse the same in accordance with the orders already passed.
9. Accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed leaving it open to the RoC to initiate appropriate action against the company.
Comments