Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Secondly, it has been pointed out that some of the secured creditors feature in the list of unsecured in their favor. For example, in CP 371/2000 entitled Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (KOEL) v. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd., the petitioner is a secured creditor in respect of whom the outstandings are Rs. 6,73,23,756. Redeemable secured debentures of the total value of Rs. 5.21 crores have been issued to the petitioner by the respondent company. However, the amount shown against this petitioner is Rs. 159.90 lakhs. In CP 133/2002, namely, Siemens Ltd. v. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. secured redeemable non-convertible debentures for an aggregate sum of Rs. 7.40 crores, of the maturity value of Rs. 11.56 crores, have been issued. This creditor has been taken into consideration in the scheme, but for an amount of Rs. 383.09 lakhs only. In CP 146/2001, Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd.--the amount claimed is approximately Rs. 78 lakhs. Reliance has been placed on Annexure B & C in that petition to an acknowledgment made by the respondent company for a sum of Rs. 23,16,847.74 and Rs. 55,02,730, respectively, as on 31.3.2000. This petitioning creditor does not feature in the list of unsecured creditors or elsewhere. The petitioner in CP 370/2001 is Bharat Earth Mover Ltd. The sum claimed in the petition is Rs. 36,42,991 along with interest thereon. My attention has been drawn to a demand for Rs. 16,91,000 raised by this petitioner by its facsimile letter dated 5.2.1996. In reply thereto, the President of the respondent company had stated that it was suffering from a liquidity crunch, and that the money would be released shortly. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to two subsequent communications in which the liability has also not been disputed. Despite this background, in the list of unsecured creditors, the amount shown against the petitioner is only Rs. 12.55 lakhs, despite the passage of over six years. Learned counsel further clarifies that in its reply, consent to the scheme has been inadvertently recorded and that it is unequivocally opposed. Similarly, in CP No. 167/2001 viz, Onida Finance Ltd. v. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd., Mr. Jayant Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that whilst postdated cheques for a sum of Rs. 1.07 crores have been issued to the petitioner by the respondent company, only a sum of Rs. 12.60 lakhs has been shown due in the scheme. Mr. Kanwal Nain, learned counsel for the respondent company, stated that only two Installments had fallen due as on 15.5.2002 and, therefore, only this figure had been stated there. Mr. Jayant Nath, in reply has contended that the entire amount was to be cleared in quarterly Installments, the last of which was due on 23.8.2000 and that, therefore, the statement made by Mr. Kanwal Nain is totally incorrect. First Leasing Company of India Ltd. has filed CA 814/2002 seeking intervention in CP No. 248/19997. It is stated that a charge for the sum of Rs. 3.89 crores stands duly registered. However, First Leasing Company of India Ltd. is not mentioned in the list of unsecured creditors or in the list of secured creditors. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing in CP No. 230/1999 submits that in the compromise arrived at on 19 November 1999-the respondent company had admitted the liability for Rs. 37,27,510 after duly accounting for subsequent payments, the amount due in that petitioners favor was Rs. 33,53,670. However in the list of unsecured creditors, the amount shown is Rs. 31,68,000. Mr. Nain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent company stated that the error has been admitted. Mr. Kaul further points out that the repayment schedule is only for Rs. 26,78,000 to which Mr. Nain again admits the error. Counsel for the petitioner submits that such errors are present in almost every case. In CP No. 269/2001 filed by BSBK (P) Ltd. v. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. the claimed amount is Rs. 68,54,096.39 as is evident on a perusal of letter dated 23.11.1999, but in the scheme, only the sum of Rs. 26 lakhs has been shown. This is being mentioned for the reason that if there is widespread error, the appointment of the provisional liquidator is imperative in all the cases. The counsel for the petitioner jointly state that the figures mentioned by them pertain to only the principal amount, and that interest thereon is not reflected at all.