2021 (11) TMI 481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Applicant Company. 2. The Petitioner has filed the main petition against Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal 85 Others/Respondents (not shown as Respondents in this IA) seeking following reliefs: (a) to direct Respondent No. 1, 5, 6, 8, 10 to deposit/refund Rs. 71,74,57,511.82 illegally siphoned/diverted from the Petitioner company/erstwhile firm and with reasonable interest and compensation. (b) to direct R-2, 3 & 4 to remove the debit freeze for the current and overdraft accounts of the petitioner company maintained with R-2. (C) to direct R-49 to take up investigation against Respondent No. 1,5,6,8,10, 14 in relation to the fraud and illegal siphonage of funds. (d) to direct R-47 & 48 to record the correct subscription wrongfully and de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Banks. The Applicant/Petitioner Company also alleged diversion of funds for purchase of properties by R-1 in the main petition. 4. The Applicant also alleged that the Respondent No. 1 Bank (Respondent No. 2 in the main petition) is evading the proceedings despite service of notices on 14.09.2021 and 22.09.2021. However, Respondent No. 1 Bank vide email dated 28.09.2021 has denied any relationship/dealings with Taashee Linux Services Ltd. Copy of email correspondence between the Applicant and R-1 Bank are annexed and marked as Exhibit M-3 (Colly). 5. The Applicant filed a memo dated 06.10.2021 stating that this Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2021 had passed order for removal of debit freeze but Respondent Bank have not complied with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Respondent Banks herein to de-freeze the accounts forthwith. 10. However, the Learned Counsel for the proposed Respondents, while strongly opposing this application submitted that the accounts of the Applicant Company has been frozen pursuant to the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 1 & 5 in the main petition and until and unless the issues raised in their counter are resolved, the Applicant Company is not entitled for any reliefs in this application. 11. That apart, it is strongly contended by the Learned Counsel for the proposed respondents (ex-Directors) that disposal of the present IA in the absence of proposed respondents would not only be violative of principles of natural justice but also would cause serious loss and hardshi....