Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ramasita Mahalakshmi P B K vs Golden Forest (India) Ltd on 27 January, 2025
1
ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25407/2018
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-02-2018
in CM No. 12506/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi]
RAMASITA MAHALAKSHMI P B K & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOLDEN FOREST (INDIA) LTD & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 27-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Amol Vasant Kokane, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Pal, Adv.
Mr. Gajendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Chaurasia, Adv.
Mr. Dharumsheela, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Suruchii Agarwal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The petitioners – herein moved the High Court being aggrieved by an order of the Committee appointed to oversee the finances and affairs of a Company by name `Golden Forest Group’.
2. It appears that thousands of individuals invested in this Company by name `Golden Forest (India) Limited’.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND3. Date: 2025.01.29 10:11:24 IST Reason: Since the Company defaulted, the investors were put into difficulty.
4. The mandate of the Committee was to identify the properties of the Group Companies to be put to sale and realise the sale 2 consideration. The sale consideration received would thereafter be distributed amongst the investors.
5. The Committee had to formulate the scheme to distribute the amount to genuine investors.
6. This Court vide order dated 5-9-2006 fixed a cut-off date for receiving the claims from the investors i.e., the petitioners – herein.
7. The High Court disposed of the applications filed by the investors i.e. the petitioners – herein in the following terms:-
“5. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that originally 267 applicants had approached the Committee of which 142 were accepted and considered to be genuine. Thus, it was submitted that the rationale for rejection of the applications after the order of the Court dated 16.11.2010 i.e. that the documents were furnished beyond the time cannot be applied validly in this case. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon an advertisement issued on 26.10.2004 by the Committee and stated that pursuant to that advertisement all applicants had approached it. He secondly relied upon an order of the Supreme Court dated 07.01.2005, which stated that it was not necessary for investors to approach the Committee with original receipts. Having regard to these facts, the circumstance that some applicants were able to furnish original receipts and the others furnished - but slightly later could not have been a determining factor. It was also stated that on 19.01.2005, the Committee acknowledged receipt of the 125 claims. It was submitted that in these circumstances the applicants' claims could have been considered and their names included in the list of genuine and bona fide investors.
6. The impugned order in this case has carefully analysed the different sets of applications' including as to whether original receipts were in fact furnished; whether they were discharged and had matured or whether they 3 indicated extant liability etc. The Committee further noticed the other relevant circumstances such as the fact that the consolidated applications were supported by affidavit of Shri Virendra Deo Dixit who claimed to be the special power of attorney holder through a deed of 2010. A copy of that power of attorney is on the record. It does not bear the names of the applicants; it vaguely purports to be collective General Power of Attorney which states that 'We, the investors of M/s Golden Forest ....... as mentioned in attested signature hereby nominate, constitute and appoint our spiritual father Baba "Virendra Deo Dixit'. The power of attorney is in two pages; names of the applicants appear in 10 separate sheets. There is nothing to show proof of the identities of these applicants beyond a broad description of their father's names. They are also shown to be the resident of Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya at Farooqabad.
7. The ground on which the applications were rejected in this case is that the original receipts accompanying them were filed late beyond the cut-off date of 10.08.2006. In this regard, the attempt made by the applicants to persuade the Court that the claims were on the same if footing as to 142 claims accepted by the Committee is unfounded. The Committee had earlier as well as in the later order recorded that the original receipts had not been placed on record. Furthennore, the consistent view of the Committee and endorsed by this Court in its various orders has been that so long as applications complete in all respects were received on or before 10.08.2006, they would be considered on their merits and any deficiencies said to be recovered thereafter, especially with regard to vital aspects such as original receipts, would not be taken into account. In this case clearly such rule followed consistently, would follow. Furthermore, the Court notices that despite liberty granted, the applicants 4 approached the Committee only on 25.01.2016 - though they were permitted to approach the Committee by an order on 16.11.2010.”
8. We fail to understand what was the good reasons for the petitioners – herein to challenge the order passed by the High Court.
9. We are informed that the Committee is functioning as on date.
10. We also take notice of the order passed by this Court dated 4-3-2024 which reads thus:-
“As per the compliance affidavit, it is inter alia contended that the claims of 125 claimants have been settled.
On perusal of the terms of the affidavit, it appears that the payment attempted and was successful to only 91 claimants out of 125.
For 05 claimants, such payments were unsuccessful. The claims of remaining claimants were also not finalised, the details thereof are as under: -1. Online KYC complete but name mismatch 10 2. Online KYC pending by claimant 09
3. Online KYC complete – Payment under process 04
4. Original receipt received but individual 06 claim not received and online KYC pending.
In view of the said, we direct, on taking steps by the individual claimants to whom the payments have not been made within a period of four weeks from today, the claims be settled further within a period of four weeks, and fresh compliance affidavit be filed.”
11. Ms. Suruchii Agarwal, the learned Senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the Committee.
512. She submitted that the Committee is looking into most of the claims and would be completing its assignment expeditiously in accordance with the Scheme.
13. There is nothing further which needs to be done in the matter.
14. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)