TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HANNA, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) This appeal is filed against an impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in CA No.40/JPR/2022 in CP No.01/(ND)/2009. 2. It is the grievance of the appellant the Ld. NCLT has erred in granting simple interest @ 6% per annum instead of 18% as was prayed by the Appellant in CA No.46/2010 and further the Ld. NCLT has erred in granting interest only for a random period i.e. from 07.01.2022 till 28.02.2023 in its discretion. 3. Briefly, the facts as narrated by the Appellant are: a) The Appellant had filed a Company Petition No. 01 of2009 under Section 397,398,402 and 403 read with Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon'ble Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 285.00 lacs in one go and transfer Haveli Premises to the Appellant. The Appellant claimed interest on the amount due to be paid @ 18% from the date of settlement till date of payment; g). it is alleged the order dated 08.09.2009 has attained finality and has to be enforced, executed and implemented w.e.f. 08.09.2009. In other words, the amount to be paid by the Respondent became due to the Appellant on 08.09.2009 and hence the prayer of the Appellant to allow interest @18% from 08.09.2009 till the date of payment is reasonable and justifiable; h). besides, implementation of the settlement terms for payment of Rs. 285 Lacs and transfer of Haveli premises, the Appellant prayed for payment of interest @ 18% per annum o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009 itself. It is alleged the Respondent No.2 has enjoyed the time value of money during this period and the fairness equity and justice demands the Petitioner should be allowed interest of 18% w.e.f. 08.09.2009. The payment of interest is justified on the ground the Appellant will go out of company and the Respondent No.2 would exclusively enjoy the benefit of accretion/increased valuation of the property of the company which will tantamount to unjust enrichment of Respondent No. 2 at the cost of the Appellant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the value of the property of the Company, the exclusive control of which will lie with the Respondent No.2 has increased tremendously since last 13 years from 2009 to 2022. It is fair that App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one go in Sept' 2009 itself. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Company Application No. 46 of 2010 before the CLB under Section 634-A for enforcement of its order passed on 08.09.2009 which was dismissed. Again, the Petitioner filed an appeal no. 1 of 2011 under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court vide its order dated 04.04.2018 set aside the order dated 04.11.2010 passed by the Company Law Board and by then the Company was struck off and stay from the CLB on Board Meeting is in operation. The Petitioner went on filing cases and the matter was subjudice. The Hon'ble High Court has not mentioned anything about interest. Hence, the prayer made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso gone through the settlement so recorded per order dated 08.09.2009 by the CLB as under:- "The parties have agreed that the petitioner will go out of the company on receipt of Rs.285 lacs plus the Haveli premises. This amount will be paid in one go. Respondent seeks time to indicate when they could make the payment after consulting their banker. To report on 27.08.2009 at 4 PM. The amount agreed to and giving away the Haveli bind the parties. 8. On going through the facts and settlement so arrived at between the parties, we are of the view it was agreed between the parties the amount of Rs.285 lakh was to be paid in one go but the respondent on 08.09.2009 sought time to indicate when they could make the payment after consulti....