2022 (9) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal] 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.04.2022, passed by the learned Company Judge. 3. Via the said order, the learned Company Judge has directed the refund of Rs. 37,28,440/- which was deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court. 4. Admittedly, the said amount was deposited by the appellant, pursuant to his plea made before the Learned Single Judge, that the appellant was interested in reviving the company in issue i.e., Bharat Foam Udyog Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the company-in-liquidation. 4.1 For this purpose, an application was moved by the appellant, which was numbered as CA No. 4480/2016. 5. The impugned orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are obliged to file statement of affairs in terms of the said provision. 8.4 Furthermore, it is the contention of Ms Sindhwani, that the valuation, of the assets made by the OL, is placed public realm, and therefore, the appellant cannot say that he did not have the necessary information. 8.5 It is further submitted by Ms Sindhwani, that the averments made in CA No. 4480/2016 would clearly demonstrate, that the motivation for having the winding up proceedings stayed was triggered by the fact, that a closely held private limited company i.e., Faridabad Metal Udyog Ltd. ["FMUL"] was occupying a portion of the land, which was owned by the company-in- liquidation. 9. Mr Aggarwal, at this stage, intercedes and says that the aforementio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... company. The application for filing a scheme was moved in and about 03.11.2016. 17. Therefore, according to us, there could not have been much variation in the position of the assets, since the winding up petition was filed in and about August 2016 under Section 433 of the Act and accordingly, the petition was admitted on 31.08.2016. 18. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the said order shows, that the Company Court appointed the OL as the provisional liquidator, and directed the directors of the company-in-liquidation to file the statement of affairs, within twenty-one days from the said date. 19. Therefore, the onus, as regards the affairs of the company-in-liquidation, at that point in time, was put on the appellant. The appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parameters indicated above. 20.3 As adverted to hereinabove, even in equity, the appellant in this case would not be entitled to interest, as he failed to present a scheme before the learned company judge, with the result that the liquidation proceedings of the company were considerably delayed. In any event, there was no bar in the appellant approaching the Court at an earlier date for refund of the money deposited by him. Therefore, it cannot even be said that the appellant was deprived of the use of money,^3 and thus should be compensated by way of interest. Thus, even on equitable grounds (which we suspect is the ground that is sought to be propounded by Mr Agarwal, although the submission made before us is not articulated in those....