Calcutta High Court
Rbi & Ors vs Timex Finance & Investment Co. Ltd on 26 February, 2009
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar, Biswanath Somadder
GA No. 3132 of 2008
G.A.No.4260 of 2004
G.A.No.2485 of 2004
G.A.No.9536 of 2003
Appeal No.108 of 1989
Matter No.4624 of 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
RBI & ORS. Appellants
Versus
TIMEX FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. Respondents
AND OTHERS AND IN THE MATTER OF CYGNUS VYAPER PRIVATE LIMITED Applicant For Applicant : Mr. P.C.Sen, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Swatarup Banerjee and Mr. Nimesh Mishra, Advocates For Regional Provident Fund Commissioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate For R.B.I. and Special Officer : Mr. Hirak Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Amal Mitra, Advocate BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER Date : 26th February, 2009.
THE COURT : By order dated 22nd September 2005, the applicant was permitted to secure the interest of all the depositors by securing a sum of Rs.1 crore, 50 lakhs, in respect of security for postponing the sale of the property already advertised and bid for, in the manner and in terms of an undertaking which was required to be filed in Court, supported by an affidavit, by 26th September, 2005 at 2 p.m. Subsequently, by filing the undertaking, supported by an 2 affidavit on 26th September 2005, the applicant undertook to deposit the amount as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit and by an order dated 26th September, 2005 the undertaking given by the applicant was taken on record and applicant was permitted to deposit the amount within the time stipulated therein. In spite of undertaking given before the Court, the applicant failed to secure the amount. Now the present application has been made seeking extension of time for securing the amount. The reasons for non-deposit within the stipulated period are sought to be explained in the application. It is stated that in terms of paragraph 5.(i) of the said affidavit recording undertaking, the applicant has already deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-.
The time schedule as set out in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid undertaking is as under :-
"5. I say that in terms of the directions passed by thisHon'ble Court on 22nd September 2005 I hereby state the following schedule referred to hereunder by way of securityfor revival and taking over of the assets and liabilities of Favourite Small Investment Ltd:-
i) To secure an amount of 13 lakhs the same will be deposited with the Original Side Registrar within a week from passing of the order by this Hon'ble Court.3
ii) To further secure an amount of Rs.50 lakhs by way of creating a charge in favour of Original Side Registrar over the fixed deposit in favour of the Original Side Registrar within two weeks thereafter.
iii) To further secure an amount of Rs.50 lakhs by way of creating a charge in favour of Original Side Registrar over the fixed deposit in favour of the Original Side Registrar within two weeks thereafter.
iv) To further secure an amount of 37 lakhs by way of creating charge in favour of Original Side Registrar over the Fixed Deposit subject to sanction and/or approval of our scheme being made by way of the said application pending disposal before this Hon'ble Court or as will be directed by this Hon'ble Court."
Except for securing an amount of Rs.13 lakhs, as mentioned in paragraph 5 (i) of the said affidavit, no further amount has been secured with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, either within time or subsequently. Mr. Sen, learned Senior counsel, submitted that the applicant was always ready and willing to secure the amount. Even Demand Drafts were ready. However, since the amount could not be secured within the time stipulated, it was necessary to seek extension from this Court. The applicant, therefore, tenders an unconditional apology for the delay that has occurred. It is also stated that by the aforesaid delay, rights of none of 4 the parties have been prejudiced. Therefore, necessary extension be granted.
We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Sen and we are not satisfied at all with the bona fides of the application having been made at this belated stage. The applicant has managed to keep the issue alive by not complying with the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 26th September, 2005. It may also be noticed that the order dated 26th September 2005 was passed by the Court keeping in mind the interest of the depositors and the approved scheme for payment which was to be made to the depositors as is evident from the subsequent order dated 6th October, 2005. In such circumstances, no further indulgence can be shown to the applicant.
The application is rejected.
Let photostat certitifed copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities.
( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C.J.) ( BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.) Rsg.
Asst.Registrar(CR) 5