TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... May, 2006 till the date of payment. 2. The appellant along with her husband had made a total of twenty investments in the sum of Rs. 82,099/- between 23rd April, 1988 to 24th June 1989 in two schemes of the company, i.e., fixed deposit scheme and hire purchase scheme. It is stated that under both the schemes, the cumulative/compound rate of interest @ 14% (for fixed deposit) and 27% quarterly or 30% p.a. (for hire purchase scheme) was payable. 3. We may note the interest prescription on the fixed deposit and hire purchase instruments. We find that in the fixed deposit receipt the following interest is stipulated:- "2. Annual yield is worked out assuming that the monthly interest is reinvested @ 14%." 4. The hire purchase agreement ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are of the liability of the company to the appellant and had interdicted any claim for the amounts due and payable. 6. The above communication from the office of the official liquidator shows that the appellant had made a claim of which the official liquidator was aware. In fact the official liquidator had directed the appellant to resubmit the same that claims were invited by him. Thus, the appellant had made the requirement of Rule 156 and in the given facts and circumstances, in fact the appellant was required to be paid interest on the contractual rate till the date of payment. This fact is completely escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge resulting in passing of the order dated 28th May, 2013. 7. The company court passed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant deserved to be paid interest on the amount payable and due to her in terms of the fixed deposit scheme as well as the hire purchase agreement up to the date of actual payment. However, inasmuch as no grievance was made by the appellant and she unconditionally accepted the amount being disbursed by the official liquidator in terms of the order dated 18th of April, 2006, we are refraining from making any order in terms thereof. 11. So far as the 28 claimants are concerned, the matter attained finality. 12. Long thereafter, it appears that behind the back of the appellant, on 7th of September, 2009, the official liquidator informed the Company Judge that it was in the process of re-examining the claims. 13. It appears that some thir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f of the official liquidator that in terms of these directions of the court M/s Rai and company's Chartered Accountant was appointed for scrutiny of claims by letter dated 15th of February, 2010 and the claims filed were handed over to this Chartered Accountant. 19. The appellant makes grievance that no notice was served upon him with regard to examination of her claim by this Chartered Accountant and she was not joined in any consideration. No opportunity whatsoever was given to her to make any submission or to answer any objections which may have been arisen in the mind of the Chartered Accountant. This submission is made without prejudice to the main contentions of Mr. Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant that the matter sto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any Court as well as the official liquidator to conduct the re-verification and re-examination of the creditor's claim behind his or her back which stood finalized and disbursed to her after due process and with her participation. The appellant assailed the report of the Chartered Accountant and the official liquidator on the ground that the same was contrary to the agreement between company and the creditors as well as their proceedings having been conducted behind her back in violation of principles of natural justice. These objections were considered and rejected by the learned Company Judge by the impugned order dated 28th of May, 2013. 23. The appellant challenges this order on the very grounds on which the application was contested.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the binding principles of natural justice as well as law. 27. It is pointed out by Mr. Vikas Sharma, learned counsel that in terms of the order dated 18th of April, 2006 the appellant has been granted interest up to 1st of October, 1997 only and nothing beyond that. The computation of the interest is based on the hire purchase agreement as well as fixed deposit receipt of the company. The rates of interest and the computation stood verified by the official liquidator and the court in 2006. 28. The appellant accepted the payment of interest till 1997 and did not make any issue with regard to her entitlement of interest up to the date of payment even though the appellant was kept waiting for almost 15 years after the amount became due and p....