Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"R.73. Notice of meeting. - The notice of the meeting to be given to the creditors and/or members, or to the creditors or members of any class, as the case may be, shall be in Form No.36, and shall be sent to them individually the Chairman appointed for the meeting, or if the Court so directs, by the company (or its liquidator), or any other person as the Court may direct, by post under certificate of posting to their last known address not less than 21 clear days before the date fixed for the meeting. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the proposed compromise or arrangement and of the statement required to be furnished under section 393, and a form of proxy in Form No.37.
After declaring the Results, I declared the meeting closed.
The minutes of the meeting of the Secured Creditors along with following related papers are annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE - II (Colly).
i. Minutes of the Meeting of the Secured Creditors held on 19.12.2000 ii. Proxy Forms iii. Attendance Slips iv. Proxy Register v. Attendance Register vi. Counting Sheets vii. Ballot Papers"

37. The Minutes of the Meeting were signed by both the Chairman and alternate Chairman on 16th January, 2001.

i. Minutes of the Meeting of the Unsecured Creditors held on 18.12.2000. ii. Proxy Forms iii. Attendance Slips iv. Proxy Register v. Attendance Register vi. Counting Sheets vii. Ballot Papers viii. Sheet containing signatures of proxy holder."

44. The Minutes of the Meeting were signed by both the Chairman and alternate Chairman on 16th January, 2001.

45. The same set of Chartered Accounts were appointed to scrutinise and verify the documentation with regard to the meeting of the unsecured creditors. The Chartered Accountants reported as follows:-

(a) Presence of strangers at the meeting of unsecured creditors.

(b) Failure of the Company to send proxy forms with the notice convening the meeting. (c) Creditors were coerced into signing the proxy forms at the site of the meeting - some creditors were lured into signing the proxy forms by giving them 10% of the principal amount of the deposit on their doing so.

74. Apart from this, it was submitted that many creditors had earlier approached the Consumer Forum for relief. They had obtained favorable orders from the concerned Forum. These creditors naturally wanted the implementation of the orders of the Consumer Forum. Others had obtained a favorable order dated 17th July, 1998 from the CLB. They wanted the implementation of this order. Both sets of creditors wanted penal action to be taken against the concerned persons for not adhering to the order of the Consumer Forum or the CLB, as the case may be. Basically, all of them wanted their money back and some punishment meted out to those who had hoodwinked them in the past and were allegedly continuing to do so. Some creditors also pleaded for orders in their favor either because of their old age or on medical grounds or for reasons of financial stringency. I do not consider it obligatory to deal with each of these submissions since they were, more or less, emotional in nature, rather than legal. Insofar as the implementation of the orders of the Consumer Forum or the CLB is concerned, that will depend on what orders are passed in this case.