AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant is a charitable, religious and educational institute, imparting knowledge in the field of Christian theology and training and preparing students to work in the Churches, Christian organizations and church based institutions. The donation received by the institution is put into various securities and the interest earned by it is used for running the institution. The complainant deposited several amounts with M/s. CRB, Capital Market Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Company) on various dates. A sum of Rs. 8 lakh was deposited on 26.09.1995 for a period of 36 months. Another sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was deposited on the same date for the period of 60 months. A sum of Rs. 10 lakhs came to be deposited on 18.10.1995 for a period of 36 months, followed by a deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs on 08.11.1995, for a period of 60 months. The deposits were to mature on 26.09.1998, 26.09.2000, 18.10.1998 and 08.11.2000 respectively. The first three deposits carried interest rate of 14% p.a., whereas the last deposit carried interest rate of 15% p.a. The company issued post dated cheques to the complainant for a total sum of Rs. 15,37,497/ -, as detailed in para 4 of the complaint. On 01.04.1997, two interest warrants deposited by the complainant with Bank of Baroda with the remarks "arrangement cancelled/withdrawal". Vide circular dated 23.04.1997 received by the complainant on 07.05.1997, the company referring to the decision of Bank of Baroda to withdraw the payment of interest warrants, requested the depositors to surrender the said warrants with an assurance that they were taking up the matter with other banks and normalcy would be restored within a short span of time.
A perusal of the order passed by this Commission on 26.02.2007 would show that a letter dated 23.05.1997 sent by the complainant was treated as a complaint. We have not been able to locate any letter dated 23.05.1997 on the file and the learned counsel for the complainant does not have copy of any such letter in his file. It appears to us that either the circular of the company dated 23.04.1997 or a letter dated 22.05.1997 addressed by the Principal of the complainant college to Reserve Bank of India was sent to this Commission and treated as a complaint. When this matter came up for hearing on 26.02.2007, this Commission noted that the letter was not in proper form in as much as the company had not been impleaded as the opposite party nor the details of the reliefs claimed had been set out in the complaint. Pursuant to this, a proper complaint was filed by the complainant college. After filing of a proper complaint, notice was issued by this Commission to the opposite parties only in respect of the following reliefs: - "b) pass an order directing the opposite party no. 1 to refund the Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 28 lakhs to the complainant with interest at 25% counting from the date of maturity till the date or realization,
c) pass an order to pay the interest warrant amount of Rs. 15,37,497/ - with interest at 25% counting from the due date till the date of realization to the complainant."
SINCE the company was in liquidation, notice of the complaint was issued to the official liquidator appointed by the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi for the said company. A reply came to be filed by the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, informing therein that the company was ordered to be wound up by the Hon''ble High Court on 22.05.1997 and he had been appointed as a Liquidator for the company. It was further stated in the reply that the Ex -Management of the Company framed a scheme for the rehabilitation of the company which came to be approved by the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi on 24.01.2006. However, subsequently, the Hon''ble Supreme Court passed an order for maintaining status quo in respect of all the assets of the Company. The Scheme framed by the Ex -Management of the Company was opposed by the Reserve Bank of India and vide order dated 29.02.2008, the Division Bench of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, set aside the order of the learned Company Judge, whereby the scheme was approved and remitted the matter back to him for fresh disposal after addressing the issues noted in the order passed by the Division Bench. In the meanwhile, the complainant filed an application under Section 446 of the Companies Act read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959, seeking permission of the Hon''ble Company Court to continue with the present proceedings. The said application was allowed vide order dated 02.05.2008 and the complainant was permitted to continue with the present proceedings subject to the condition that the order for recovery, if any, passed against the Company shall not be executed without prior permission of the Hon''ble Company Court. An application thereafter came to be filed by the respondent in the Company petition seeking recall of the order dated 02.05.2008. That application was dismissed by the Hon''ble Company Judge, vide order dated 21.05.2008. Thus, the complainant has been permitted by the Hon''ble Company Court to continue with the present proceedings. No other order has been received either from the Hon''ble High Court or from the Hon''ble Supreme Court contrary to the orders passed by the Hon''ble Company Court on 02.05.2008 and 21.05.2008 or staying/recalling the aforesaid orders.
WHEN this complaint came up for hearing on 27.11.2009, notice was issued to the Official Liquidator. However, there was no appearance on his behalf despite service of the notice. When this complaint came up for hearing before us on 27.08.2014, it was noted that no one was present for the Official Liquidator despite notice having been served upon him. Vide our order dated 15.09.2014, we requested the complainant to serve a notice in the Office of the Official Liquidator informing him that he is required to remain present on the next date of hearing. However, no one appeared for the Official Liquidator on 30.09.2014, which was the next date of hearing in the matter despite notice sent to him by the complainant requesting him to remain present. When the matter was taken up on 28.10.2014, which was the next date of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant informed that in compliance to our order dated 30.09.2014, they had sent a notice to the Official Liquidator by post, which he had received on 13.10.2014. Since, no one appeared for the Official Liquidator on that date, we posted the matter for final hearing on 02.01.2015.
THE complainant has filed the affidavit of its Principal and CEO, Revere, I John Samuel Raj, by way evidence. In his affidavit, Mr. Samuel has stated on oath the case set out in the complaint as noted hereinabove. He has also stated that the complainant institution runs on donations received from various donors and the said donations are kept into various securities, the interest from which is used for running the institution. He has also proved the receipts as well as the interest warrants issued by the Company to the complainant.
IT is evident from a perusal of the documents filed by the complainant that they had deposited a total sum of Rs. 28 lakhs with the opposite party on various dates between 26.09.1995 to 08.11.1995 and the fixed deposits were to mature on different dates between 26.09.1998 to 08.11.2000. The Company issued as many as 17 interest warrants for a sum of Rs. 1537496.97 to the complainant. The copies of the Fixed Deposits and interest warrants are collectively exhibited as Ex. CW1/2.
FROM the documentary and oral evidence produced b the complainant, we are satisfied that the Company is liable to return the aforesaid amount of Rs. 28 lakhs to the complainant alongwith agreed interest till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 04.06.1997. We, therefore direct that the interest on the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs shall be calculated at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of complaint, whereas the interest on the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs shall be calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of complaint. We accordingly dispose of the complaint with the following directions: - 1) The opposite party, M/s. CRB, Capital Market Ltd. (in Liquidation) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 28 lakhs alongwith interest calculated in terms of this order till 04.06.1997, when this complaint came to be filed.
2) The opposite party, M/s. CRB, Capital Market Ltd. (in Liquidation) is directed to pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date the said amount is paid.
3) The opposite party, M/s. CRB, Capital Market Ltd. (in Liquidation) is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/ - to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
IT is directed in view of the condition imposed by the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, while granting permission vide order dated 02.05.2008, that this order shall not be executed without prior permission of the Hon''ble Company Court.