2019 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 4944
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SNDP BRANCH NO.363 – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
TP - 89/2019
For the Petitioner:PRIYADARSINI VINCENT
For the Respondent:MOHAMMED FAZIL M P
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOCHIB ENCH TCP No.89/KOBI2019 (CP No. 3/2009 of the Hiah Courto f Kerala)
(Onder Section 237 read with Section 247 of the Companies Act, 1956)
Order delivered on 5th March, 2021 Coram:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Kumar Borah, Member (Judicial)
In the matter of Petitioners:
1 SNDP Branch No.363, Nikshepaka SamrakshanaS amithi (Reg.No.A/391)
Neerkunnam,A lleppey representedb y its Convenor 2 Manikuttan,A thul Nivas, 41/A, ThattampallyP O Alappuzha.
Vs.
Respondents
1 Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Reserve Bank of India, representedb y its Governor, New Delhi.
3 The State of Kerala, representedb y itsS ecretaryt o Home Affairs, Govt. of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Director Generalo f Police, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthacadu,T hiruvananthapuram
5. The Registraro f Companies, Kerala, Ernakulam
6. SNDP Yogam (The Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam) No.2/1708.
Kollam.
7. The Secretary,U nion Trust, SNDP Yogam, Kakkzham-NeerkunnamA, lappuzha.
8 Shri ASP Kurup, Advocate,S /o late Sankara Kurup, Chamber No.137,K HCAA, Golden Jubileee Chamber, High Court of Kerala Ernakulam-682031 (R8 impleaded vide order dated 6.2.2020 in IA/30/KOB/2020).
Parties/Counse(lt hrough Video Conference):
For the petitioners Smt.PriyadarshinVi incent,Advocate For Respondents : ShriR ajan Babu, Advocate : Shri Mohammed (for R6)
Fazil, GP (for R3&R4)
:None appeared for R8 ORDER This CompanyP etition was originallyf iled before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and numbered as Company Petition No.03/2009. On 09.03.2017 Hon'ble High Court of Keralap assed the following order:-
In the light of notificationS .0.3676(E)d ated 7. 12.2016 issuedb y the Ministry of CorporateA ffairs bringingi nto Jorce various provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, inchuding Sec.434(1)%C)o f the Companies Act, 2013, the notification No.G.S.R.l 119 (E) dated 7. 12.2016 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, promulgating the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings)R ules,2 016, as wella s the DivisionB ench judgment of this Court dated 3.2.2017 in R.P.No.1 1 6 of 2017 in W.P(C) No.39898 of 2016 and judgmentd ated 3.2.2017 inW .P(C) Mo. 39551 of 2016,i t is orderedt hat the Registry willt ake steps to transfer these matters to the NationalC ompany Law Tribunal, (NCLT) Chennai, with all the case records.T he National Company.L aw Tribunal, Chennai, may be requestedt o issue necessary notices to all the Advocates concerned as well as the parties concernedi n these cases well in advance before the next posting date, so as to enable them to appear either through the present Advocates concernedo r by making necessary alternate arrangements in that regard.
Upon the aforesaid order this Company Petition was transferred to NCLT, ChennaiB ench and on constitutiono f Kochi Bench this was again transf erred to this Bench and renumbereda s TCP No. 89/KOB/2019.
The Petition was filed under Section 237 read with 247 of the Companies Act,1956. The first Petiioner is a Registered Association (Society) of various depositors who have deposited their hard earnings with Kakkazham Neerkunnam Union of SNDP Yogam the 7h Respondent as they have been offered very high returns.
3. It is furher stated that the RespondentN o.6 is also a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956. It has various unions in charge of smaller areas, and co-ordinating the various activities. One of such unions is Kakkazham Neerkunnam, Alappuzha.T he union formed a depository scheme and attracted deposits from various depositors.P ass books were issued to the depositors with the caption'C hathayaD ina Deposit'.
4. All the Petitioners and other depositors have deposited huge amountsv arying from 1,00,000/-to 3,50,000/-. Neither interest is paid to the depositors nor returned the deposits and that the entire money collected by way of deposits have been siphoned off. It is also stated that the 6 Respondent is responsible for the functions of t