IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
Unitech Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Companies Delhi & Haryana - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 4284 of 2016 and Crl.M.A. 17848 of 2016, 3296, 19366-19367 of 2017, 35958 of 2018 and Crl.M.C. 4285 of 2016 and Crl.M.A. 17851 of 2016, 3297 of 2017
Decided On : 22-01-2019
ORDER
1. Section 74 of the Companies Act, 2013, prior to its amendment of 2018, read as under:
"74. Repayment of deposits, etc., accepted before commencement of this Act.-(1) Where in respect of any deposit accepted by a company before the commencement of this Act, the amount of such deposit or part thereof or any interest due thereon remains unpaid on such commencement or becomes due at any time thereafter, the company shall-
(a) file, within a period of three months from such commencement or from the date on which such payment are due, with the Registrar a statement of all the deposits accepted by the company and sums remaining unpaid on such amount with the interest payable thereon along with the arrangements made for such repayment, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or under the terms and conditions subject to which the deposit was accepted or any scheme framed under any law; and
(b) repay within one year from such commencement or from the date on which such payments are due, whichever is earlier.
(2) The Tribunal may on an application made by the company, after considering the financial condition of the company, the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest payable thereon and such other matters, allow further time as considered reasonable to the company to repay the deposit.
(3) If a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon within the time specified in sub-section (1) or such further time as may be allowed by the Tribunal under sub-section (2), the company shall, in addition to the payment of the amount of deposit or part thereof and the interest due, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than one crore rupees but which may extend to ten crore rupees and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five lakh rupees but which may extend to two crore rupees, or with both."
2. The petitioner company (Crl.M.C.4284/2016) had received deposits from certain investors at large, the value of the outstanding liability on such account at the time of commencement of the Companies Act, 2013 having been assessed to be in the sum of Rs.6,03,06,73,000/-, the number of depositors statedly being 56,436. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 came into force w.e.f. 6th June, 2014. Under the new dispensation, by virtue of the legislative command in Section 74(1), the company was obliged to repay the said amounts within the period prescribed, it being indicated in the original enactment to be one year, from the date of commencement of the new law or from the date on which the payments were to fall due, whichever was earlier, the said period prescribed in Section 74(1) (b) having been later revised and modified to three years in terms of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017. The law, however, would permit a company under the statutory liability to seek enlargement of time for discharge of liability to pay by making an application before National Company Law Tribunal ("the tribunal") under Section 74(2). The default in payment of the requisite amounts either within the statutorily prescribed period or by close of the extended time allowed by the tribunal attracts penal clause contained in Section 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. It is undisputed case on both sides that the petitioner company approached the tribunal by Company Petition (T) No.10/18/2015 and in the course of consideration of the prayer made therein it was permitted the enlargement of time for compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 74(1) and (2) by a series of orders, the last effective order passed by the tribunal being of 11.03.2016, it having been granted on the basis of affidavit submitted by managing director of the company giving undertaking to make some payment (to the tune of Rs.30 crores) by the dates specified (30.04.201
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.