TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with interest @ 24% per annum, from the respondent M/s Arcon Engineering Co. Ltd. 2. Pursuant to a petition filed on 21st May, 1997, M/s CRB Capital Markets Ltd. was directed to be provisionally wound up on 22nd May, 1997. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as its provisional liquidator. 3. The company in provisional liquidation was in the business of finance, hire-purchase, leasing, advancing loans and accepting deposits under various Schemes. 4. On an examination of the records available with his office, the applicant/Official Liquidator discovered that the respondent company had taken an inter-corporate loan of Rs. 50 lakhs on 14th September, 1996 from the company in provisional liquidation. It was further d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability to pay the outstanding amount. It is submitted that despite service of the aforesaid communications, the respondent failed to make any payment. The applicant has, therefore, moved this application praying for an order of recovery of the aforesaid amount, along with interest @18% per annum till its realization, in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. 5. In the reply filed on 14th January, 2003, the respondent denied having taken an inter-corporate loan, as alleged, or at all. Instead, the respondent contended that this amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was a payment made by the company in provisional liquidation to purchase shares in the respondent company and was, therefore, share application money. It is also alleged by the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of, were also sought. No reply was filed to CA No.1266/2009. However, on 18th May, 2010, an opportunity was granted to Mr. Kantawala, counsel for the respondent, to place on record the original share application form, or any other covering letter or document sent by the company in provisional liquidation to the respondent, in support of his contention. This was not done. On 3rd August, 2010, counsel for the respondent stated that he had no further instructions from his client in this regard. On the same date, arguments were completed and orders reserved. 7. An affidavit of Shri Dinesh Chand, Deputy Official Liquidator, was filed on 3rd March, 2004 by way of evidence in support of this application. Ex.P-1 is a copy of the bank statement iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the prescribed application form, as well as the appropriate share application money. This money is usually paid by cheque. It is not necessary that a demand draft should be tendered. In the present case, a demand draft for an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs was tendered by the company in provisional liquidation. The company in provisional liquidation spent an amount of Rs. 3,000 in having the demand draft prepared in favour of the respondent company. However, the respondent then reimbursed this amount of Rs. 3,000 to the company in provisional liquidation. The fact that, in this case, a demand draft was tendered and that the company in provisional liquidation had taken the trouble and expense of having the demand draft made, can only mean that the....