TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>NCLT Upholds Jurisdiction Over Company Act Deposits, Rejects Challenge</h1> <h3>Ms. Bimla Kothari and Others Versus M/s Unitech Ltd.</h3> Ms. Bimla Kothari and Others Versus M/s Unitech Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Maintainability of petitions under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.2. Interpretation of the term 'deposits' under section 73(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.3. Definition of 'depositors' under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.4. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in addressing grievances of depositors.5. Remedies available to depositors under the Companies Act, 2013.6. Allegations of siphoning off money and diverting investments by the respondents.7. Dismissal of respondent's application for maintainability of petitions.8. Undertaking by the respondents to sell assets for repayment of dues to depositors.9. Concerns regarding directors escaping the country and steps taken by the Registrar of Companies (RoC).Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Petitions under Section 73(4): The Tribunal received over 300 applications from depositors seeking redressal under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. The lead case involved matured fixed deposits not being repaid by the Respondent Company, leading to grievances from depositors, especially senior citizens facing financial crises.2. Interpretation of 'Deposits' under Section 73(1): The Respondent argued that deposits taken under the Companies Act, 1956, before the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013, should not fall under the purview of section 73(1) of the new Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that all previous deposits should be considered under the new Act.3. Definition of 'Depositors' and Jurisdiction of NCLT: The Respondent contended that only depositors under the Companies Act, 2013 could seek relief under section 73(4). However, the Tribunal held that the NCLT has adjudicatory rights for equitable jurisdiction, emphasizing that the Act does not differentiate between depositors pre or post the new Act.4. Remedies Available to Depositors: The Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's argument that depositors should seek relief in Civil Courts, asserting that NCLT has the authority to address grievances. The ruling emphasized that all depositors, regardless of when deposits were made, are entitled to remedies under the Act.5. Allegations of Siphoning Off and Diverting Investments: Deposit-taking company faced allegations of siphoning off funds and diverting investments, leading to depositors' inability to retrieve their investments. The Tribunal noted the concerns raised by depositors regarding the company's financial health and actions taken by the Respondent.6. Undertaking to Sell Assets for Repayment: Respondents offered to sell specific parcels of land to repay depositors, with proceeds to be deposited in a designated account. The Tribunal accepted this undertaking to secure depositors' interests, clarifying that it does not absolve the Respondent from legal actions.7. Concerns Regarding Directors and Registrar of Companies: Deposit-taking company's directors faced concerns of fleeing the country to evade liabilities. The RoC initiated steps to investigate allegations of siphoning off funds. The Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and directed appropriate actions to safeguard depositors' interests.This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment delivered by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
