Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 Mr. Murarka, counsel for petitioner submitted that after this petition was filed, petitioner had also filed a summary suit in this Court with respect to one ICD of Rs.3 Crores and petitioner has obtained a summary decree against respondent company. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the invocation of pledge was post the decree and hence his case is that the decree has been satisfied. I am not going into or opine on that aspect in this petition as that will be decided by the Court while executing the decree and petitioner has already filed execution proceedings. It is petitioner's case that even to the statutory notice dated 12 th December 2012 issued on behalf of petitioner, the company did not even reply. Therefore, the company is deemed to be unable to pay its debts and requires to be wound up.

(iii) of the affidavit in rejoinder. In paragraph (iv) at page 119 of the affidavit in rejoinder, it is stated that "as on date petitioner has not sold any shares pledged against these loans, which form part of the petition and as on date petitioner holds 8,97,13,389 shares of respondent company". To the affidavit in rejoinder, is also annexed a copy of confirmation of creation of pledge form dated 9th May 2011 filed by petitioner with Axis Bank Limited. Also annexed is, a copy of invocation of pledge form dated 12 th November 2013 filed by petitioner with Axis Bank Limited. The amount of pledge value in both are same, i.e., the date on which confirmation of creation of pledge has been filed and the date on which the pledge has been invoked. If pledge has been invoked, I would expect it has been invoked to sell the shares or Gauri Gaekwad 4/6 25.CP-104-2013.doc appropriate the same to itself and give credit to the value thereof to the company. No correspondence to that effect was brought to my notice. 6 Mr. Khandeparkar, counsel for respondent submitted that even if the Court proceeds on the basis that respondent company had pledged these shares and it was open to petitioner to sell these shares, still petitioner has recovered more money by selling these shares. Mr. Khandeparkar also submitted that as per the terms and conditions of placing the ICD's, it was the obligation of petitioner to call upon respondent company to provide additional security to match the difference, if the security value fell below 150% of the loan amount. Admittedly, no such notice has been given though Mr. Murarka submitted that under the terms and conditions, it was the obligation of respondent company to, on its own, provide additional security to match the difference. I am not inclined to accept this submission of Mr. Murarka because it is the responsibility of petitioner to inform the company that the value of security has fallen below 150% of the loan amount and call upon the company to provide additional security to match the difference and if respondent company does not comply, then to invoke the pledge and then sell the shares. No such notice has been given by petitioner and petitioner could not show any document to the contrary. 7 In the additional affidavit that is filed on behalf of petitioner, a statement is annexed at Exhibit "D" giving details of the security given by Gauri Gaekwad 5/6 25.CP-104-2013.doc respondent company and number of shares sold. Curiously against Rs.1 Crore ICD's, the company has given security of 2 Crores worth shares of the company through its subsidiary - Adarsh Finvest Private Limited but petitioner is showing that Adarsh Finvest Private Limited has created security of Rs.5 Crores worth shares and petitioner has sold those Rs.5 Crores worth shares. There is clearly a mismatch.