2026 (4) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, prescribes for that, when the Company fails to repay the deposit or a part thereof or any interest thereon, as it falls due to be paid under Sub Section (3) of Section 73, it is left open for the depositor to apply to the Tribunal to get an order for the Company to pay the sum due or for any losses or damages incurred by the depositor as a result of non-payment for such dues. Further under Section 74(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, it is incumbent on the Company to repay the deposits accepted by it prior to commencement of the Companies Act, 2013, within 3 years of commencement of the said Act or on the expiry of the deposit period whichever is earlier. The Petitioner had prayed before Ld. NCLT that the company as per the above provisions was to refund the deposit which it had not done and hence the same may be directed to be refunded. 2. The aforesaid Company Petition instituted by Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar under Section 73(4), to be read with Section 74(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, as against M/s. Chettinad Coal Washeries Private Limited. Respondent No. 1 herein, remained pending before the Company Law Board till it was tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellate Tribunal had observed as under: - "114. As a logical corollary, the 'impugned order' dated 26.05.2022 in TCA/1/2016 in TCP/1/2016 and in CA/69/2016 in TCP/1/2016, on the file of the 'National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench-I, Chennai, is set aside for the reasons ascribed by this 'Tribunal' in these two 'Appeals'. The matter is remitted back to the 'National Company Law Tribunal', Division Bench- 1, Chennai, for fresh consideration, and for passing a reasoned speaking order (of-course, un-influenced and un-trammelled with any of the observations made by this 'Tribunal' in these 'Appeals'), granting liberties to the respective 'Parties' to make a mention and to proceed further, in the subject matter in issue, soon after the adjudication of pending Testamentary Proceedings', between the 'Parties' before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras." 5. As a consequence of the aforesaid two appeals, the order of substitution dated 26.05.2022 was 'quashed' and a consequential direction was issued by virtue of Para 114 of the judgment which is extracted above and the matter was remanded bac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A (CA) No. 93(CHE)/2024 before Ld. NCLT praying for a Direction to the Respondent No.1 Company M/s. Chettinad Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 66.32 crores along with interest of 18 % from the date of filing of TCP/1/2016 until the date of repayment to the credit of probate proceedings pending on the file of Hon'ble Madras High Court in T.O.S No. 27/2021. The said relief was sought for on the grounds that though Hon'ble NCLAT has directed Ld. NCLT to decide on the Substitution Application after final adjudication in the probate proceedings T.O.S. No. 27 / 2021 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it has not given its seal of approval to the Respondent No. 1 Company to override the provisions of Section 73 & 74 of the Companies Act, 2016, and the provisions of Companies ( Acceptance of deposits ) Rules, 2014, by continuing to retain the said deposit received before the commencement of Act, 2013 and that too even after its maturity. He also expressed his apprehension that since 99% of the shares of the Respondent No. 1 Company are being held by Respondent No. 2 along with his wife, there is a possibility of the said deposit being frittered away and therefore, to safeg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ues to retain the deposit even after its maturity which will not be in the interest of the estate of Late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy and the said asset may be frittered away by the Company and therefore it is just and proper that the said deposit is refunded back to the estate of Late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy along with accrued interest irrespective of who is declared as his successor as per the probate proceedings. 12. After having gone through the pleadings of the Appellant and the elaborate arguments put forth by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant, we are of the view that the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal dated 06.09.2022 was only limited to adjudicating on the issue of as to who will replace or who will be substituted for late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar in the T.C.P. No.1 of 2016. Rightfully, the said question can be decided only after conclusion of the probate proceedings which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. However, in the application IA No.93/2024 it has been prayed that the Respondent No.1 company to be directed to refund the deposit made by late Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar with interest as stated therein to the credit of the probate proceedin....