AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h in Case No. 86/73(4)/ND/2019, 89/73(4)/ND/2019 and 88/73(4)/ND/2019 and prayed that the Respondent may be directed to pay the maturity amount on fixed deposit with interest @12.5% p.a. from the date of maturity of the fixed deposit alongwith litigation cost. COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.216 of 2019 3. The brief facts of the case are that MR Ateet Bansal is a depositor who had bought a FDR from Respondent Company dated 01.06.2013 for Rs. 1,00,000/- having FDR No. 1220500. FDR was made on 01.06.2013 for a period of three years and an amount of Rs. 1,45,217 was payable to the depositor upon maturity on 01.06.2016. The Respondent through an Application under Section 74(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 proposed to make payment to its depositors of matured amount with interest from the date of maturity till the date of payment through a rescheduled plan. 4. That the depositor had approached the Respondent several times since his Fixed Deposit got matured with them but on all such occasions the Respondent did not pay the maturity amount and also did not pay any attention to Appellant's demand and never replied regarding the outstanding payment. Appellant filed a Company Petition in Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....[seven years and with fine] which shall not be less than twenty-five lakh rupees but which may extend to two crore rupees, Provided that if it is proved that the officer of the company who is in default, has contravened such provisions knowingly or wilfully with the intention to deceive the company or its shareholders or depositors or creditors or tax authorities, he shall be liable for action under section 447.]" 8. It is further stated by the Appellant that despite the acceptance of notice on 25.04.2019 by Mr. Vivek Mishra the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, no reply was sought to be filed which clearly shows that they were in default and no objection was raised by them and due to the default in repayment of matured amount by the Respondent, Appellant had to bear the court fees at NCLT, and now in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal with litigation cost. COMPANY APPEAL (AT) No.218 of 2019 The brief facts of the case are that Sunita Bansal is a depositor who had bought two FDR from Unitech Limited (Respondent Company) dated 29.05.2013 & 28.11.2013 for Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- having FDR No. 1220015 & 1246693 respectively. FDR's were fixed on 29.05.2013 & 28.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide order dated 8th September 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Mr. Pawan Shree Agarwal as Amicus Curiae, who directed to file a chart containing details of various projects of the Company and the name of consumers and amount deposited with the Respondent. d) It is further stated that pursuant thereto, Order dated 30th October 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Directors of the Respondent to deposit a total amount of Rs. 750 Crores before the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a pre-condition to the grant of bail. The Apex Court further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the company and passed direction for the Amicus Curie to create a portal where the persons who have invested with the Company by way of fixed deposits shall give the requisite information. e) It is also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court having taken strict cognizance of the payments and disbursements by the Respondent Company, time to time issued various directions to the Amicus Curie and further constituted Justice Dhingra Committee vide order dated 14th May 2018 to supervise the working of payments and disbursal of the money deposited by the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Supreme Court. 12. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. First of all we want to mention that the order was reserved on 13.1.2020 and thereafter on 20.1.2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhupinder Singh Vs Unitech Ltd Civil Appeal(s) No.10856 of 2016 have reconstituted the Board of Unitech Ltd and there is no director on the Board of erstwhile Management. It is not in dispute that the Respondent accepted deposit in the shape of FDR on 1.6.2013, 20.06.2013, 28.11.2013 and their maturity date was in 2016. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent company has not paid the maturity amount to the appellants on their due date inspite of various requests made by the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent did not appear before NCLT despite accepting notice, no reply was filed. The arguments of the Respondent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the company or directors is concerned, no coercive steps have been taken by the appellants against the respondent company and its directors. On the other hand the Respondent taking the shelter of Supreme Court order is ....