Madras High Court
M/S.New Tirupur Area Development ... vs Union Of India on 14 March, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:786
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.32720 of 2024 and 4917 of 2025
M/s.New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd.,
Rep. through its Company Secretary,
Having office at Polyhose Towers,
First Floor No.86, Mount Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Shastri Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The RoC,
Tamilnadu, Coimbatore,
No.7, AGT Business Park, I Floor,
Phase II, Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post,
Coimbatore - 641 014, Tamilnadu.
3. M/s.Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am )
1/27
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
IL&FS Financial Centre, 9th Floor,
Plot No.C-22, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (east), Mumbai - 400 051.
4. M/s.IDBI Bank Limited,
115, Anna Salai, Post Bag No.805,
Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
5. M/s.Small Industries Development Bank of India,
480, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
6. M/s.Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Investment Department (Project Appraisal/
credit rating cell),
Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai - 400 021.
7. M/s.Central Bank of India,
Corporate Finance Branch,
MMO Building, 1st Floor,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 023.
8. M/s.Bank of Baroda,
Tirupur Branch, 642,
Kamaraj Road, P B No.434,
Tirupur - 641 604.
9. M/s.State Bank of India,
Project Finance Group,
Express Towers, 20 Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am )
2/27
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
10. M/s.General Insurance Corporation of India,
Suraksha, 170 J Tata Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 023.
11. M/s.National Insurance Company Limited,
Everest House, 4 Floor,
46C J N Road, Calcutta - 700 071.
12. M/s.New India Assurance Company Limited,
87, MG Road,
Mumbai - 400 023.
13. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
A-25/25 Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi - 110 002.
14. M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
24, Whites Road,
Chennai - 600 014.
15. M/s.State Bank of Hyderabad,
Overseas Branch,
1204 Tulloch Road,
Colaba, Mumbai - 400 029.
16. M/s.State Bank of Patiala,
Atlanta, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021.
17. M/s.Bank of India,
Chennai Corporate Banking Branch,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am )
3/27
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
Tarapore Towers, Fourth Floor,
826 Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
18. M/s.Indian Overseas Bank,
122, Kumaran Road,
Tirupur - 641 601.
19. M/s.Punjab National Bank,
Brady House, VN Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 023.
20. M/s.Canara Bank,
Industrial Finance Branch,
Second Floor, World Trade Tower,
Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi - 110 001.
21. M/s.Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Harsha Bhawan,
E-Block, Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents
(R4 is substituted vide separate order,
dated 14.03.2025 in W.P.No.30011 of 2024)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order, dated 05.08.2024 passed by the second
respondent herein vide RoC/CBE/SKS/NTADCL/2024 and quash the same
as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am )
4/27
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
respondent herein to register the satisfaction of charge as per the petitioner's
representation, dated 16.02.2024 in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian,
Senior Counsel,
Asstd. by Mr.C.V.Shailandhran
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Additional Solicitor General,
Asstd. by Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy,
Central Government Counsel,
for RR-1 and 2
: Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar,
Senior Counsel,
Asstd. by Mr.Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas,
for R3
: Mr.Om Prakash,
Senior Counsel,
Asstd. by Ms.Vinithra Srinivasan,
for R4
: Notice served to RR-5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18
: Not ready notice for RR-6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19
to 21
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 5/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 This Writ Petition challenges the order, dated 05.08.2024, issued by the second respondent, seeking to quash it and consequently, directing the respondents to register the satisfaction of the charge as per the petitioner's representation, dated 16.02.2024.
2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner Company availed financial assistance from respondents Nos.3 to 21 for its purposes. During this process, a charge was registered by the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter 'RoC') in accordance with Chapter-VI of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The petitioner asserts that it has settled the entire amount owed to respondents Nos.3 to 21. Consequently, on 16.02.2024, it submitted an application under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. The prayer in this application reads as follows:-
"In the light of the above circumstances, it is respectfully prayed for your immediate intervention on the subject and request you
1. To register our Satisfaction of charge Application made to your good office by exercising your power under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 6/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 section 82 and 83 of the Act.
2. To issue the suitable direction to IDBI (trustee Bank), appointed by the lenders to issue the No dues certificates to the Company, for satisfaction of full Charge. and release the charge created on the Assets of the Company i.e. NTADCL, for the above stated Charge id and sign the CHG-4 form (as Charge Holder), for completing the intimation pRoCess to the RoC, that need to be Complied by the Company and charge holder within stipulated time line. (which could not be complied by the Company, due to non-issue of No dues certificate for the above stated un-justifiable reasons by the Lenders and IDBI (trustee Bank).
We also wish to bring it to your kind attention that the filing of the e-form (CHG-4) as per sec.82 (1), could not be done by the Company without signature of charge holder, which is allowed in spirit by the section 82(2) of the Act otherwise and Company may not be held Liable for delay, if any made due to the charge holder's fault from Procedural Compliance aspect."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. When an inquiry was conducted by the RoC on behalf of the consortium of creditors and certain individual banks, it was denied that the charge had been cleared. They expressed their unwillingness to issue a No- Due Certificate and requested the RoC to keep their charge intact until their dues were settled. Therefore, the RoC noted that 16 out of 19 charge holders https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 7/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 unanimously objected to the satisfaction of the charge against the Company and had not issued a No Objection Certificate, thus, requesting to maintain the charge in MCA-21 until the dues were settled. Hence, the request was rejected by the impugned order, dated 05.08.2024. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order.
4. Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner company, drew the attention of this Court to communications from the various individual banks intimating that the loan amounts paid and that there are no dues etc., more specifically, to the communications, dated 31.03.2023, 27.03.2023, 29.03.2023, 24.05.2023 etc., are contained in page No.191 onwards of the paper book filed along with the Writ Petition. He submits that it is evident that the charge was created solely for the specified loan amounts and did not encompass any right of recompense. Therefore, when the petitioner settled the entire amount, the RoC should have considered this fact and entered satisfaction of the charge in accordance with Section 82 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 8/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 the Act.
5. Alternatively, he would argue that even if any amount is due, the RoC should have considered that. According to respondent Nos.3 to 21, a sum of Rs.69.3 crores is due regarding the right of recompense and another sum of Rs.65.36 crores is claimed by the third respondent. Assuming that any further sum is due and declared by the creditor institutions as due, the Registrar should have exercised the power under Section 83 of the Act and accordingly, recorded part satisfaction of the charge or varied/modified the charge. The initial charge that mentions the whole amount of borrowings cannot be maintained as is; therefore, the impugned order must be set aside, and the Registrar should be directed to modify/alter the charge to that extent.
6. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for respondents Nos.1 and 2, submits that the power granted under Chapter-VI of the Act must be exercised solely in accordance with the Act. This power https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 9/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 resembles that of the Registrar in registering transactions between parties and does not encompass any adjudicatory exercise. The limited discretion is to examine the evidence regarding any admission of satisfaction by the parties or any adjudication by the competent forum concerning the debt or discharge of the charge and to record this. However, when creditors dispute the Company’s claim, it is not the role of the RoC to make a decision or pronounce on the matter. Accordingly, he contends that the RoC has reviewed the case. When the petitioner requested the charge to be removed, and the creditors objected by not issuing a No-Dues Certificate, the RoC rightly chose not to remove the charge.
7. Regarding the power under Section 83, unless there is sufficient evidence on record to satisfy the Registrar, this power cannot be exercised. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the parties did not present any evidence to satisfy the Registrar. Therefore, the impugned order was justifiably issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 10/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024
8. Mr.P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent, submits that, firstly, the respondents' actions amount to forum shopping. They have made similar requests before the N.C.L.T as well. Secondly, the fact that they have submitted other applications to different forums is not pleaded. They have suppressed material facts. On these two grounds, the petitioner's Writ Petition should be rejected in limini. Furthermore, although the petitioner's prayer includes making the RoC a party, it essentially seeks to determine the liability between the petitioner Company and the banks. This does not involve any public duty, except for the authority being a statutory body. Since the entire dispute pertains to contractual matters, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
9. Regarding the removal of the charge, they have not given their consent and dispute the claim that all dues are settled. Once they object, the RoC cannot remove the charge. As long as the last paise remains unpaid, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 11/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 charge will remain intact. Mr.Giridhar refers to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in this regard drawing the Court's attention to Section 60. Additionally, he would submit that the amounts keep varying and that interest continues to accrue. There is no authority to enter the part payments periodically or to modify the charge that has been already recorded.
10. Even with reference to Section 83(b), he contends that unless consent is forthcoming from the bank, the said power cannot be exercised. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 1 Court of India in Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India to argue that the High Court, while exercising its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction, would not grant relief if there is any suppression of material facts. The learned Senior Counsel also cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India 1 (2007) 8 SCC 449 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 12/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 2 Limited and Ors. to assert that when the facts presented in the affidavit are misleading, the Court should dismiss the Writ Petition. He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bank of Baroda Vs. Farooq Ali Khan and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2759 of 2025, dated 20.02.2025, to submit that when there is an alternative remedy in the form of statutory tribunals, the High Court cannot entertain the Writ Petitions. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa and 3 Ors. , to argue that when the statute that creates a right or liability also provides for a remedy for enforcing it, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained.
11. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Binny 4 Limited and Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan and Ors. is also relied upon to argue that a Writ Petition is not a remedy against private wrongs. The learned Senior Counsel would reference the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2 (2008) 12 SCC 481 3 (1983) 2 SCC 433 4 (2005) 6 SCC 657 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 13/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 5 of India in Ramakrishna Mission and Anr. Vs. Kago Kunya and Ors. to assert that it is not the body that matters—whether it is a private or public body—what is relevant is the nature of the duty, whether it is public or private. Accordingly, this Court should conclude that the matter at hand is private in nature and should not entertain the Writ Petition. The learned Senior Counsel would also refer to the judgment of the Privy Council in 6 Ram Chand Shah Vs. Parbhu Dayal Pandit and Ors. , to argue that the provisions of Sections 60 and 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, apply in the case of redemption, and unless the last paise is paid to the satisfaction of the mortgagor, the charge cannot be released. Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, the learned Senior Counsel, would submit that even under Section 83, there is a difference in the exercise of power between Section 83(a) and Section 83(b).
12. Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent, submits that the prayer cannot be entertained by this Court, as the borrowers 5 (2019) 16 SCC 303 6 1942 SCC OnLine PC 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 14/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 may frequently approach the RoC to record part satisfaction. It is their duty to settle with the creditors, and if the creditors do not agree, they must approach the competent forum. They cannot indirectly achieve this by making the RoC adjudicate such contentious matters. A reading of Chapter- VI of the Act makes it clear that it is beyond the purview of the RoC to enter into or entertain such disputes.
13. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely on the relevant rules, namely, the Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules, 2014, to argue that the forms are submitted in accordance with these Rules and that, unless the creditor records some satisfaction, there is no provision for adjudicating or correcting the said forms. When the petitioner has stated in their application that the facts are disputed, then, on the face of it, their Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. The learned Senior Counsel would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal 7 Corporation and Ors. Vs. Gayatri Construction Company and Ors. , 7 MANU/SC/7917/2008 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 15/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 specifically paragraph No.7, to argue that the High Court cannot delve into contractual matters while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
15. The first question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner has suppressed material facts. In this regard, the prayer made in the Writ Petition pertains to the exercise of power under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act, by the RoC. Since the petitioner disclosed the application made and the objections raised by the respondents/creditors and has duly added them as respondents, I do not see any intention or attempt by the petitioner to suppress material facts. The prayer made before the N.C.L.T and in the present Writ Petition are not one and the same. Therefore, I answer the question in favour of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 16/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024
16. The second question to be decided in this case is whether or not the Writ Petition is entertainable and whether this amounts to forum shopping. In this regard, Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent, draws the attention of this Court to the application made before the N.C.L.T. Upon reviewing the prayer itself, it is clear that it does not relate to the exercise of power under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. Furthermore, the prayer in the Writ Petition pertains to the nature of the RoC's exercise of power under Sections 82 and 83. The Act, is a self- contained code, and Chapter-VI is a sui generis provision that enables the registration of all charges related to Companies by the RoC. This ensures that any person wishing to inspect the records can ascertain the charges against the Company. It serves the public interest, not just that of any particular Company or creditor, and aims to secure the interests of creditors and present and prospective investors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 17/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024
17. The charge is also specifically defined under the Act. In this context, the question raised in the Writ Petition is whether the RoC has correctly decided the application made by the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. This involves a statutory exercise of power. Therefore, I conclude that it does not fall within any contractual realm or private dispute but rather questions the statutory exercise of power. Thus, the Writ Petition is maintainable.
18. Regarding the merits of the case, the petitioner's prayer was previously extracted. With respect to the first part of the prayer concerning the recording of satisfaction of the charge, it is essential to refer to Section 82 of the Act:
"82. Company to report satisfaction of charge.—(1) A company shall give intimation to the Registrar in the prescribed form, of the payment or satisfaction in full of any charge registered under this Chapter within a period of thirty days from the date of such payment or satisfaction.
Provided that the Registrar may, on an application by the company or the charge holder, allow such intimation of payment or satisfaction to be made within a period of three hundred days of such payment or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 18/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 satisfaction on payment of such additional fees as may be prescribed.
(2) The Registrar shall, on receipt of intimation under sub-section (1), cause a notice to be sent to the holder of the charge calling upon him to show cause within such time not exceeding fourteen days, as may be specified in such notice, as to why payment or satisfaction in full should not be recorded as intimated to the Registrar, and if no cause is shown, by such holder of the charge, the Registrar shall order that a memorandum of satisfaction shall be entered in the register of charges kept by him under section 81 and shall inform the company that he has done so:
Provided that the notice referred to in this sub- section shall not be required to be sent, in case the intimation to the Registrar in this regard is in the specified form and signed by the holder of charge.
(3) If any cause is shown, the Registrar shall record a note to that effect in the register of charges and shall inform the company.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the powers of the Registrar to make an entry in the register of charges under section 83 or otherwise than on receipt of an intimation from the company."
Thus, it can be observed that whenever a Company claims that payment has been made or satisfaction of the charge has occurred, the procedure envisioned is that the Registrar must issue a notice to the relevant creditors. Only if they do not object or fail to appear before the Registrar to show cause can a note to that effect be recorded. If the creditors appear and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 19/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 contest the assertion that the charge is satisfied, the Registrar has no authority to adjudicate on the matter and therefore, the Registrar has rightly rejected the Company's request to remove the charge.
19. The next point concerns the recording of partial satisfaction or modifying the charge. In this regard, Section 83 of the Act is extracted for easy reference:
"83. Power of Registrar to make entries of satisfaction and release in absence of intimation from company.—(1) The Registrar may, on evidence being given to his satisfaction with respect to any registered charge,—
(a) that the debt for which the charge was given has been paid or satisfied in whole or in part; or
(b) that part of the property or undertaking charged has been released from the charge or has ceased to form part of the company’s property or undertaking, enter in the register of charges a memorandum of satisfaction in whole or in part, or of the fact that part of the property or undertaking has been released from the charge or has ceased to form part of the company’s property or undertaking, as the case may be, notwithstanding the fact that no intimation has been received by him from the company.
(2) The Registrar shall inform the affected parties within thirty days of making the entry in the register of charges kept under sub-section (1) of section 81."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 20/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024
20. In this regard, the counter-affidavit of the RoC, from paragraph Nos.12 to 18, reads as follows:-
" 12. It is submitted that the objection raised by the lenders are that the company has not paid the Right of Recompense amount of Rs.69.83 crores to the lender.
13. It is submitted that the main contention between the parties is that the rate of Right of Recompense is not agreed between the company and the lenders.
14. It is submitted that this office has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the rate of Right of Recompense.
15. It is submitted that this office has not received any proof from the borrower on whether the Right of Recompense is secured or not secured under the charge ID No. 90004044. The borrower ought to have submitted enough evidence about the nature of Right of Recompense whether secured or unsecured.
16. It is submitted that in the absence of any proof to the contrary, this office is bound to take a stand that Right of Recompense is secured and hence passed orders based on the objection of the lenders.
17. It is to submit that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the borrower and lenders to present enough evidence on whether the Right of Recompense component is secured or unsecured and if secured, whether that was covered in charge documents filed mutually by the borrower and lenders with this office, which will enable this office to decide upon the case under the appropriate provisions of Companies Act, 2013.
18. It is to submit that in case RoR (Right of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 21/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 Recompense) components are secured by security in the case (charge ID No. 90004044), The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the parties to file concerned E-form in MCA portal for “Modification of Charges” to the extent of pending payment."
21. Although the counter-affidavit states that appropriate proof was not filed by the parties to exercise the power, I do not find any reasoning in the impugned order. The impugned order speaks and considers only the exercise of power under Section 82, with no mention of the request or reasons about Section 83. Secondly, even before this Court, the RoC is indicating that if proper evidence is produced by the parties, it can consider this within the limited discretion available and in accordance with the letter of the law under Section 83 of the Act.
22. Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, the learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the jurisdiction of the Registrar is not what the RoC perceives, but, it has to be laid down by this Court as per the law. The contention of both learned Senior Counsel is that such a prayer from the Company/borrower cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 22/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 entertained. I do not find any such embargo under Section 83. Furthermore, as rightly pointed out to this Court by learned Senior Counsel Mr.Om Prakash, the manner of registration is also governed by the Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules, 2014. Rule 3 explicitly addresses the creation or modification of charges as well. Therefore, this Court is not entering into a factual dispute regarding whether there is any partial or full satisfaction or whether it would require modification of the charge. It is for the RoC to consider the matter. The conclusion I reach is that in the impugned order, the power exercised concerns the prayer made under Section 82 of the Act. It is in order. The impugned order does not require any interference. However, the further alternative prayer made under Section 83 has not been considered, and no reasons have been provided in the impugned order. The impugned order need not be set aside regarding this, as the powers under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act are mutually exclusive. Section 82(4) of the Act makes this expressly clear. Therefore, I consider it sufficient to direct the RoC to address the issue concerning its https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 23/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 exercise of power under Section 83 of the Act. This Court is also not deciding as to whether the request and exercise of power will be under Section 83(a) or (b) as all the submissions are to be canvassed before the RoC.
23. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The petitioner, as well as the respondent banks, shall appear before the RoC on 03.04.2025. The petitioner will be entitled to submit evidence and make such claim with reference to the exercise of power under Section 83 of the Act in the appropriate form on the specified date;
(ii) The copies thereof shall be provided to respondents Nos.3 to 21 or any other interested person. Thereafter both sides shall be heard and the matter be decided in accordance with the law;
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a web-copy of this order without awaiting a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 24/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 certified copy of the order;
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.03.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Shastri Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The RoC,
Tamilnadu, Coimbatore,
No.7, AGT Business Park, I Floor,
Phase II, Avinashi Road, Civil Aerodrome Post,
Coimbatore - 641 014, Tamilnadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am )
25/27
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
W.P.No.30011 of 2024
and W.M.P.Nos.32720 of 2024 and 4917 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 26/27 W.P.No.30011 of 2024 14.03.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 11:01:07 am ) 27/27