Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is an application filed under Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') to enforce the order dated 29-2-2000 of the CLB directing Nagarjuna Finance Ltd, ('the company') to repay the deposits together with interest within the repayment schedule specified therein. The application came up for hearing from time to time and finally on 26-7-2001.

2. Shri B. Kanta Rao, advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant reiterating the averments made in the application has submitted that the applicant had kept eight deposits of each Rs. 5 lakhs on 28-7-1997 for a period of 45 months. Though the deposits were matured on 28-4-2001, the company failed to pay the interest and repay the principal amount in terms of the order dated 29-2-2000. Shri Kanta Rao pointed out that the company ought to have paid interest at the contracted rate upto the date of maturity and thereafter overdue interest at 14.50 per cent per annum. The deposits being above Rs. 50,000 are payable within 36 months from the date of maturity at 30 per cent of the principal amount with interest thereon during the first year, 35 per cent of the principal amount with interest thereon during the second year and balance 35 per cent of the principal amount with interest thereon during the third year. The payments should be made in monthly instalments in the order of date of maturity of deposits. Though the order of the CLB is specific, the company failed to make any payment in accordance with the order dated 29-2-2000. The company and every officer including the directors of the company are jointly and severally responsible for due compliance of the order, failure of which attracts the penal provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 58A of the Act. The company deliberately violated the order of CLB and the Registrar of Companies (RoC) may be ordered to proceed against the company for non-compliance of the order. Though the company deducted tax at source under TDS and remitted tax to the Government of India on behalf of the applicant, it failed to pay balance of the amount. In view of the default on the part of the company, a decree should be passed against the company as well as Shri K.S. Raju, Promoter director for the outstanding deposit amount. Though the company is taken over by a third party and Shri K.S. Raju as well as Shri L.V.V. Iyer had resigned from the Board, their liability do not cease till repayment of the deposits. Shri Kanta Rao urged that every Bench constituted under Section 10E of the Act is a civil as well as criminal court and every order made by a Bench in exercise of its powers shall be deemed to be its order, enforceable under Section 634A by the Board. Every Bench shall have powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, every Bench shallbe deemed to be civil court and every proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. Moreover, by virtue of Regulations 44 and 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, the Bench of the CLB constituted under Section 10E is given inherent powers. The term 'any order' referred to in Section 634A is a word of wide meaning and prima facie the use of 'any' excludes limitation or qualification. The order under Section 58A by the CLB has been made in the interest of depositors and in the public interest. The said order is a decree to be enforced and failure to comply attracts Section 634A and empowers the CLB to transfer its order dated 29-2-2000 to City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where the company is situated.

3. Shri C.R. Murali, Practising Chartered Accountant and authorised representative of the company has submitted that the deposits to the applicant are payable together with interest within 36 months from the date of maturity at the rate of 30 per cent of the principal amount in the first year, 35 per cent in the second year and balance in the third year. The first instalment has not become due as per the order of the CLB. Moreover, the petitioner has not surrendered the fixed deposit receipts. The petitioner has neither made any claim for considering his case under the hardship category. Shri Murali further reiterated that the applicant cannot seek any remedy under Section 634A in the matter relating to the alleged non-compliance of the order of the CLB passed under Section 58A(9). According to him, Section 58A is a self-contained one providing for all issues in connection with public deposits and hence question of invoking Section 634A does not arise. Shri Murali has, therefore, sought for dismissal of the application.

6. In regard to the plea of Shri Murali that the provisions of Section 634A cannot be invoked by the applicant, it may be observed that this section is explicit which runs as follows :

"Enforcement of orders of Company Law Board--Any order made by the Company Law Board may be enforced by that Board in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a suit pending therein, and it shall be lawful for the Board to send, in the case of its inability to execute such order, to the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,--
(a) in the caseof an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or
(b) in the case of an order against any other person, the person concerned voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain."

Section 634A is clear that as in the case of a Court, the orders of the CLB can be enforced by it in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court. This section further permits the CLB, in case of its inability to execute the order, to seek the assistance of the Court having competent jurisdiction for execution of its order. In view of this there is no force in the argument of Shri Murali.