COMPANY LAW BOARD
Dhan Raj, J.
Jindal Cotex Ltd., In re
C.P. No. 25/5/2013-CLB
Decided On : 09-01-2014
1. In this case, the Petitioner/ Applicant Company has moved Company Petition on 14.11.2013 under Section 58A(9) and Section 58 AA of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rule 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 with the prayer to allow the scheme for repayment of its deposits as per the Schedule of Repayment and exempt the Applicant Company from the requirement of maintaining liquid assets under Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 till the validity of the scheme, as may be sanctioned by the Hon'ble Board. The Petitioner Company was incorporated on 18th February, 1998 and is having its Registered Office at V.P.O. Jugiana, G.T. Road, Ludhiana-141420. Against the Authorised Capital of Rs 60 crores, the Paid-up Capital amounted to Rs 45.00 crores, as on 31.03.2013. Presently, the Petitioner' Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of yarn, knitted clothes and fibres both in India and abroad. During the year ending 31st March 2013, the sales turnover of the Petitioner Company stood at Rs 320.77 crores.
2. The Petitioner Advocate has submitted that the Applicant Company has not only been extremely regular, punctual and sincere in deposit/ payments of Income Tax, Excise Duty, Sales Tax and other Government dues, suppliers dues, workers dues but also in the repayment of fixed deposits and interest accrued thereon. Being public limited company, the Applicant Company has accepted deposits from the public since March, 2011 and the Applicant Company had regularly and punctually paid back the fixed deposits up to 14th August, 2013. However, as stated by the Petitioner Advocate in the Company Petition, during the financial year ending 31st March 2012, the Applicant Company started facing liquidity problems and incurred losses to the extent of Rs 16.26 crores as against Gross Revenue Income of Rs.274.50 crores and marginal profit of Rs.4.41 crores as against the Gross Income of Rs.320.77 crores during the year ending 31st March 2013. Primarily, the reasons for the current liquidity problems have been stated as under :—
(a) Fluctuation in cotton and yarn prices.
(b) Delayed/non-realization of receivables of company
(c) Financial stress to non-performance of major subsidiaries.
(d) Higher interest outgo
3. The Petitioner Advocate has further stated that the current liabilities of the Applicant Company as on 31.03.2013, aggregates to Rs 522.94 crores and there has been no material and perceptible change with regard to the financial position of the Applicant Company till date. In addition, every year in the next three years, there is a cash out flow which is not met by the cash inflow of the Company and hence, there is a cash deficit which does not warrant the repayment of the fixed deposits unless the repayment is rescheduled / restructured. In the Petition, it has also been stated that the Applicant Company has approached their Bankers for the purpose of "Corporate Debt Restructuring" (hereinafter called CDR) under the Oriental Bank of Commerce who acted as a lead Bank. Further, it is submitted that the proposed CDR, inter alia, provides for initial moratorium of up to two years. The banks, after appreciating the genuine and bona fide difficulties and problems of the applicant company, in all likelihood may allow the applicant company initial moratorium and may permit the applicant company to commence re-payment of debts on very liberal terms keeping in views the temporary financial difficulties being faced by the Applicant Company.
4. In the Company Petition, the Petitioner Advocate has highlighted that the Petitioner Company wishes to come out of the present difficult financial conditions by adopting the following remedial measures / steps :—
(a) Implementation of the Restructuring Package
(b) Realization of old and sticky debtors.
5. As stated in the Petition, there are total fixed deposits of Rs 14.39 crores as on 31.10.2013. However, the deposits to the tune of Rs.1.30 crore
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.