TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....S. Cheema, J. : 1. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by the Impugned Order dated 21.11.2017 passed in CA 1/73/16 by National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench ('NCLT', in short). The said Application was filed by Respondent - Lal Chand Singhal under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. In short, he claimed that he had given a sum of Rs. 75 Lakhs to be kept as fixed deposit with Respondent Company - Moongipa Investments Limited. When he sought repayment of his deposit with interest, the Company failed to liquidate the amount. He made various allegations against the Company and its Directors, which have been noted by the learned NCLT. 2. It appears that, in NCLT, when application was filed, Notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he view to avoid attachment by courts, be declared null and void is also outside the jurisdiction and domain of this Bench. Cancellation of conveyance deeds can only be done through a civil court. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed off with directions to the ROC to initiate necessary prosecution under section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. The matter be referred by the ROC to the SFIO to make an inquiry into the allegations of siphoning off the funds, specially of inter corporate deposits, and if retrievable, take adequate steps to protect them from further dissipating so as to meet the liability of the applicant herein and to initiate punishment akin to the provisions of Section 74(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shiv Kumar Aggarwal, Madhur Aggarwal and Sudhir Aggarwal also represent Respondent No.1 Company - M/s. Moongipa Investments Ltd. 3. The counsel for Respondents states that Respondent No.5- Subhash Chander Singhal is no more associated with the Company and he is not party to the MOU. 4. Respondents 2 to 4 as arrayed in CA 38/2018 (for themselves and for Respondent No.1) and the Appellant - Lal Chand Singhal state that they have gone through the MOU dated 27.08.2018 executed between them and that they have understood the contents and agreed to the contents and have accordingly signed the MOU. The Appellant and Respondents 2 to 4 (for themselves and Respondent No.1) state that they admit contents of MOU and will remain bound ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6857 and MOU dated 27.08.2018 filed with the joint application and which is at Page 17 of the Diary No.6857. The appellant, Mr. Lal Chand Singhal is present before us and he submits that he has received all the money which he had to receive back from the respondents and he has no grievance left against the respondents in his Company Appeal (AT) No.38/2018. He submits that the Tribunal may pass suitable orders and that in the matter, from his side there is nothing remaining which would require execution. 2. Counsel for the appellant in Company Appeal (AT) No.150/2018 and Company Appeal (AT) No.151/2018 submits that these appeals have been filed in view of the directions of the NCLT in the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 directing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded. 6. In Company Appeal (AT) No.150/2018 and Company Appeal (AT) No.151/2018 the appellants to file copy of the prosecution which has been filed by the ROC. Appellants of Company Appeal (AT) No.150 and 151 of 2018 shall also not only file a copy of the prosecution mentioned above but also file affidavits if there are any other proceedings filed against them in consequence of impugned order NCLT. Same be filed before next date. 7. Let Company Appeal (AT) No.150/2018 and 151/2018 be listed for hearing appellants and directions on 16.1.2019." 6. Accordingly, the Company Appeal 38/2018 filed by the original Applicant - Lal Chand Singhal came to be withdrawn and the present two Appeals remained. On 16th January, 2019, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Singhal. In view of the fact that the original Applicant - Lal Chand Singhal has compromised with the Appellants and has received his dues and has no more grievances against the Appellants, we intend to quash the Impugned Order. As the original Applicant has compromised with the Appellants, any action purely on the basis of the grievances of the Respondent - original Applicant - Lal Chand Singhal of failure to pay deposit, should not survive. However, if after the Impugned Order was passed, if the ROC has collected any other material against the Appellants, relating to any other similar failure to repay deposits or any other failures on the part of the Appellants under the Companies Act, we do not intend to protect the Appellants from a....