NCLT dismisses appeal for extension, upholding Section 74 to protect depositors' interests.

The NCLT rejected the appellant's applications for further extensions, emphasizing the need to protect depositors and the lack of bona fide efforts by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal highlighting the stringent provisions of Section 74 and the importance of upholding depositors' interests.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Earlier relief taken from CLB under the old Act.
2. Fresh scheme filed to re-fix schedules/instalments under the new Act.
3. Plight of depositors.
4. Offering yet another "revised scheme."
5. Still another proposal to tone down liability.
6. Impugned order - discussion.
7. Application for modification of impugned order - withdrawn.
8. The appeal.
9. Response of ROC.
10. Counsel heard.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Earlier Relief Taken from CLB under the Old Act:
The appellant, a listed company incorporated on June 6, 1986, filed a petition before the Company Law Board (CLB) under Section 58AA of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking a scheme for repayment of its deposits and exemption from maintaining liquid assets. The company had been regular in repaying deposits until 2013 when it faced liquidity problems and incurred significant losses. The CLB sanctioned a repayment scheme on September 30, 2013, with specific guidelines for repayment of fixed deposits over extended periods and reduced interest rates.

2. Fresh Scheme Filed to Re-fix Schedules/Instalments Under the New Act:
On September 27, 2016, the appellant filed an application under Section 74 of the Companies Act, 2013, seeking further rescheduling of repayment periods and instalments, citing continued liquidity problems. The appellant proposed a new scheme with extended repayment periods and reduced interest rates, arguing that the earlier CLB order was not fully accepted.

3. Plight of Depositors:
The NCLT issued notices and received objections from depositors and the Registrar of Companies (ROC). Various depositors, including senior citizens and those with serious illnesses, raised objections to further extensions, citing bounced cheques and financial hardships. The ROC opposed the extension, emphasizing the need to secure the interests of public depositors.

4. Offering Yet Another "Revised Scheme":
The appellant filed another application on March 28, 2017, proposing a revised scheme for repayment, citing notices from secured lenders and outstanding debts. The revised scheme offered different repayment schedules for senior citizens and other depositors, seeking further extensions.

5. Still Another Proposal to Tone Down Liability:
On September 12, 2017, the appellant filed another application, claiming improved financial positions of its group companies and proposing to pay depositors as per the original CLB order but from the date of the NCLT order. The appellant cited ongoing financial losses and sought further extensions.

6. Impugned Order - Discussion:
The NCLT noted that the appellant had not made any payments to fixed deposit holders since filing the application and observed that the stringent provisions of Section 74 aimed to safeguard depositors' interests. The NCLT rejected the plea for further extensions, emphasizing the need to protect depositors who had already suffered delays.

7. Application for Modification of Impugned Order - Withdrawn:
After the impugned order on December 8, 2017, the appellant filed another application for modification, proposing a better repayment plan. However, the NCLT was not convinced, and the application was withdrawn, leading to the present appeal.

8. The Appeal:
The appellant argued that it had made substantial payments and proposed selling 20 flats to repay depositors. The appeal sought the appointment of a committee to oversee the sale of flats and requested reduced monthly payments and priority payments for hardship cases.

9. Response of ROC:
The ROC opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the NCLT rightly dismissed the application for further extensions. The ROC highlighted the need to secure public depositors' interests and noted that the appellant had already been granted sufficient time by the CLB.

10. Counsel Heard:
The counsel for the appellant argued for further extensions, citing ongoing financial efforts and referencing a judgment that allowed extensions under Section 74(2). The counsel for the ROC emphasized the need to protect depositors and opposed further extensions.

Conclusion:
The NCLT rejected the appellant's applications for further extensions, citing the need to protect depositors and the lack of bona fide efforts by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal emphasizing the stringent provisions of Section 74 and the need to uphold depositors' interests.

---