Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unicure in Patel Kashiram Gangaram vs Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd. on 7 April, 2005Matching Fragments
9. Mr. R.K. Golani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent Company, namely, M/s. Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd. was, initially, a partnership firm which was known as Unicure Pharmaceuticals and at that point of time, the petitioners had deposited certain amounts with the said Partnership Firm and it was promised and undertaken by the said Partnership Firm to return the amount of deposits with interest @ 15% as and when demanded. The said Partnership Firm was subsequently converted into a Private Limited Company in the name and style of M/s. Unicure Remedies Pvt. Ltd., under the Provisions of Part - IX of the Companies Act, 1956 on 03.03.1993. He has further submitted that by virtue of the said conversion, all assets and liabilities of the Partnership Firm were transferred to the Company and the Company was liable to return the deposits with interest to the petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, on number of occasions had demanded the return of deposits with interest but the respondent Company was not in a position to pay back the amount and had shown a total lackadaisical approach towards the repayment of the amount of the petitioners. The petitioners have moved separate applications before the Company Law Board (Bombay Bench) under the Provisions of Section 58-A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956 and had, interalia, prayed that the respondent Company be directed to make repayment of their deposits along with interest due thereon in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deposits.
11. Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Company has submitted that all these petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitions are not in proper form. The requirements of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 are not complied with. The affidavits filed are also not in proper form and they are not valid. The petitions are, therefore, required to be dismissed on this short ground. Mr. Vakil has alternatively submitted that all these petitions are frivolous, baseless and without any substance. In any case, highly disputed questions of facts are involved in these petitions and adjudication thereof would require a full-fledged trial and hence, the petitions must necessarily fail. The petitions deserve to be dismissed even on the ground that the petitioners have not paid any amount to the Company as the amount was paid by them to the Partnership Firm, namely, Unicure Pharmaceuticals and hence, the petitioners should not have any grievance against the Company.
12. Before entering into the merits of the matter, Mr. Vakil has given the factual background and has submitted that M/s. Unicure Pharmaceuticals was a Partnership Firm formed by one Shri Bharat Shah and one Shri Ambalal Patel. Both the parties had agreed to bring in necessary funds in their own names and also in the names of their friends and relatives. The petitioners happened to be close relatives of the said Shri Ambalal Patel and by virtue of their relationship with the said Shri Ambalal Patel, in the name of the petitioners, the said Shri Ambalal Patel had given deposits to the said Firm in the year 1983 84. The said firm was converted into a Private Limited Company under Part - IX of the Companies Act, 1956 on 03.03.1993. The said Shri Ambalal Patel had taken all the steps for the purpose of the said conversion. Immediately, after the conversion, disputes developed between the said Shri Bharat Shah and Ambalal Patel and at that time, the parties have decided to refer the said disputes to the arbitration of Shri Mayank Patel, Chartered Accountant, as the sole arbitrator. One of the issues before the arbitrator was liability of the Company to repay the amount of deposit placed by Shri Ambalal Patel and his friends and relatives including the petitioners. Various meetings were held from time to time before the said arbitrator wherein both the parties raised appropriate contentions. Ultimately, the said arbitrator gave the award broadly on the following terms:-