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>Non-Banking Finance Firm Liquidated; Customer Access to Safe Deposit Lockers Approved with Indemnity Conditions.</h1> <h3>Mr. C.K. Sreenathan Versus Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, M/s Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd., Bangalore</h3> Mr. C.K. Sreenathan Versus Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, M/s Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd., Bangalore - TMI Issues:1. Winding up of the respondent-Company sought by RBI.2. Ownership and access to safe deposit lockers.3. Request for direction to open lockers and take possession of articles.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a Company Petition filed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seeking the winding up of the respondent-Company under Section 45-MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 r/w Section 433 of the Company Act, 1956. The respondent company, a non-banking financial institution, was incorporated in 1985 and operated under the regulatory framework of the RBI. The Court appointed an official liquidator to take charge of the company's assets and properties, including safe deposit lockers, following the filing of the Company Petition by RBI.The applicant, a customer of the respondent company, sought permission from the Official Liquidator to open his safe deposit lockers and take possession of the articles stored within. The Court issued directions for the opening of the lockers in the presence of the applicant, a representative of the RBI, and the Official Liquidator. An inventory of the contents was to be prepared, and the articles were to be kept back in the lockers after the inventory process. The keys to the lockers were to remain with the applicant until further orders.Following the opening of the lockers and the inventory process, the Official Liquidator did not dispute the ownership claims made by the applicant regarding the articles stored in the lockers. Consequently, the Court ordered the Official Liquidator to hand over all the listed articles to the applicant and his wife upon execution of an indemnity bond and an undertaking not to dispose of the articles for at least one year. The applicant and his wife were required to provide an affidavit affirming the undertaking, with the indemnity bond and undertaking remaining valid for one year from the date of possession.Furthermore, the Official Liquidator was directed to have an Officer of the RBI present during the handover of the articles, and if any ex-Directors were available, they were also invited to witness the transfer. The judgment concluded by disposing of the application with the specified directions, ensuring the proper transfer of the articles from the lockers to the applicant and his wife while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
TaxTMI 