TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;) having its registered office at Hari Ugam, E-61, Chitranjan Marg C-Scheme, Jaipur. The case of the petitioner Bank is that the respondent company is engaged in the business of distributors, stockist, retailers, clearing and forwarding agents etc. and has a nominal capital of Rs. 10,000,000/- (One Crore) divided into 10,000,000 share of Rs. 10 each of which the paid up capital is Rs. 10,000,000/-. It has been submitted that on account of business loan advanced as per loan agreement No.SA338718 dated 29- 12-2010 the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner Bank in a sum of Rs. 32,12,485.21 as on 23-6-2012. As per the agreement the loan advanced was to be repaid along with interest at the rate of 36% p.a. computed on monthly basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter `the Act of 1993') before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter `the Tribunal') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,66,945.79 along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 36% p.a. This application was allowed by the Tribunal on 2-4- 2014. The petitioner Bank has also filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent Company. It has been submitted that the registered office of the respondent Company had to be vacated on 4-2-2012 as the Allahabad Bank auctioned the said property under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Hence the notice sent by the petitioner Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be dismissed. Heard. Considered. The only submission of counsel for the respondent Company in defence to the winding up petition is contrary to the judgments in the case of Viral Filaments Ltd. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. [(2003)113 Company Case 85 (Bombay)] and the case of The Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. RPG Transmission Limited [(2006)133 Company Case 172 (Delhi)], and Haryana Telecom Limited Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. [AIR 1999 SC 2354] wherein it has been categorically held that mere filing of application for recovery of debt before the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act of 1993 would not entail a bar in law to laying a winding up petition under the provisions of Act of 1956, where conditions therefor provided are proved to ....