1998 (9) TMI 473 - HC - Companies Law

Delhi High Court Orders Deposit Compliance Despite Pending Proceedings

SJ. SD. Chhatwal Versus Pushpa Builders Ltd.

The High Court of Delhi asserted jurisdiction to order the respondent to deposit amounts as per National Commission orders, despite pending proceedings. ... Winding up – Commencement of Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the court regarding transfer of deposited amount.2. Compliance with orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.3. Disbursement of deposited amount to flat buyers.4. Calculation and payment of interest.5. Delay in payment and objections raised by the respondent.Jurisdiction of the Court:The High Court addressed the objection raised by the respondent regarding its jurisdiction due to the pending petition before the National Commission. The court clarified that it had the authority to pass orders related to winding up petitions and directing the respondent to deposit the amount as per the National Commission's orders. The court emphasized that the pendency of proceedings before the National Commission did not bar it from issuing such directions, and directing the deposit did not imply a lack of jurisdiction.Compliance with National Commission's Orders:The judgment detailed the history of litigation involving various applications filed by the respondent. The National Commission had previously directed the respondent to refund amounts to flat buyers. Despite appeals and review applications, the respondent failed to comply fully. The court, in response to the respondent's delays, directed the respondent to deposit the outstanding amount to the flat buyers and appointed a provisional liquidator. The court also set deadlines for payment, emphasizing the need for compliance with the National Commission's orders.Disbursement of Deposited Amount:The court dismissed the respondent's objection to the disbursement of the deposited amount, highlighting that previous orders had already authorized the disbursement to flat buyers. The court directed the Registry to calculate the amounts due to each buyer and issue cheques accordingly. The respondent was instructed to deposit the remaining balance within a specified timeframe to ensure full payment to the flat buyers.Calculation and Payment of Interest:The respondent's challenge to the interest rate of 18% per annum was rejected by various courts, affirming the rate set by previous orders. The court reiterated that this ground was not open for review, emphasizing the finality of the interest rate decision.Delay in Payment and Objections:The court noted the respondent's attempts to delay the implementation of court orders and highlighted the respondent's failure to fully discharge its debt to the flat buyers. The court found no merit in the respondent's objections and emphasized the need for prompt payment to the flat buyers. The judgment concluded by dismissing the respondent's application and directing the respondent to pay the outstanding balance to ensure full compliance with the court's directives.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal issues addressed by the High Court of Delhi regarding the transfer of deposited amounts, compliance with National Commission's orders, disbursement to flat buyers, interest calculation, and addressing delays and objections raised by the respondent.