TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-scheduled plan dated June 26, 2001, by obtaining extension orders from time to time from this Bench, which is detrimental to the interest of the small depositors. 3. The brief averments of the application : The RBI, being a regulatory authority for non-banking financial companies by virtue of the RBI (Amendment) Act, 1997, regulates the function of non-banking financial companies, such as, issuance of certificates of registration to NBFCs in prescribed norms for conducting their business; issuing directions prohibiting NBFCs from accepting deposits and filing of winding up petitions, etc., as mentioned in the RBI Act (Annexure A1). Since the RBI vested with powers under sections 45J, 45K, 45L of the RBI Act, 1934, to regulate the acceptance of deposits, this applicant (RBI) filed this application against the first respondent-company for having failed to comply with the repayment of deposits. 4. In the course of its business, the first respondent-company collected huge deposits from the public under fixed deposit schemes and obtained "AA" High Safety rating by CARE, since the first respondent-company failed to repay the deposits on maturity, several complaints were filed bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of deposits up to 31-12-2010, on another application moved for extension up to September, 2012 by the respondent-company. Here also this Bench repeated that no further extension of time should be granted for re-schedule of repayment of fixed deposits giving liberty to the applicant to proceed against the first respondent-company in the event of non-compliance of the order. Two years thereafter, on 19-5-2009, the first respondent came up with one more application seeking extension of time up to December, 2014, in pursuance thereof, this Bench passed an order on 13-10-2009 (Annexure A10) extending the time up to December, 2012. 6. The applicant further submitted that the company's net worth has worsened from minus Rs. 19.08 crores in 2007 to minus Rs. 19.65 crores in 2008, the balance-sheet for the year 2008-09 was not filed. The net worth of the company is negative and CARE has not been maintained. As per the last audited balance-sheet as at 31-3-2008, the company's accumulated losses increased to Rs. 48,882.53 lakhs. It also reveals filing of a winding up petition against this company, if at all it is wound up, the creditors will receive preference over the deposit holders. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly to the demur application, thereafter the first respondent-company filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicant in the demur application. 9. The sum and substance of the argument of the first respondent's counsel is that whatever extensions given by this Bench on the applications are given by putting all these to the notice of the applicant for all these times. This applicant, despite service of notice, never placed any objection before this Bench. Even after passing of these orders, this applicant never moved any set aside petition nor filed any section 10F appeal before the hon'ble High Court at Calcutta assailing the orders passed by this Bench. Moreover, the company, despite being crippled by financial crisis due to mismatch between the assets and liabilities resulting in a severe liquidity crisis, has been doing its best by making repayments to the depositors as ordered by this Bench from time to time. This Bench, on seeing the efforts made by the first respondent, extended time with a view that every depositors be repaid by the company. The company also viewing the same, until date repaid a sum of Rs. 127 crores to the depositors, hence at this stage the interfere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench to recall its own order passed in accordance with law and because there is an express provision for setting aside of the order passed by this Bench and a provision of appeal. The applicant having failed to have recourse under any of these provisions, is not permitted for the relief of recall of the order invoking regulations 43, 44 and 48 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991. The first respondent's counsel with these submissions, sought for dismissal of this application as not maintainable. 13. Having heard the arguments of either side, the points for consideration are : Is this application maintainable ? If maintainable, is the applicant entitled to the reliefs sought by it ? 14. As to the first point, it is evident that there is no provision for review of the order passed by this Bench, in fact the provision of review in force until 1992 was deleted. No doubt, there is a provision of inherent power analogous to section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which could be invoked as and when felt necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of this Bench. There is also a provision giving power to this Bench to dispense with the re....