Ind Swift Ltd vs Roc, Punjab & Haryana on 19 September, 2018
(b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 74 of the new Act shall be deemed to have
been complied with. This is, however, subject to the fact that the Company
complies with the requirements under the Act and the Rules and
"continues to repay such deposits and interest due thereon on due dates
for the remaining period" as per the terms and conditions. Considering
these provisions, it appears to us that Section 74(1)(b) was attracted and
when it appears from record that the Appellant defaulted, the penal
provisions would get attracted. We are not convinced with the argument of
the learned counsel for the Appellant that the reference to the matter of
"Jainendra Sahai Sinha" (Supra) helps the Appellant to state that multiple
applications for extension of time could be filed. When once a scheme had
been got settled, from CLB, default on the part of the Appellant would
attract penal provisions as the earlier scheme itself laid down. If we accept
the argument of the counsel for the Appellant that more than one
application could be filed under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, it
would be like rewriting the Section to read that "The Tribunal may on an
application made by the company, from time to time, after considering the
financial condition of the Company .................." allow further time to the
Company. We cannot read or add words like "from time to time" in the
Company Appeal (AT) No.52 - 53 of 2018
27
provision as no such multiple applications are provided for. Else, the
provision will become a tool to stall recovery suits and Insolvency
Proceedings, which cannot be allowed.