OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF SREE AYYAPPA CHIT FUNDS (P.) LTD. Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND REGISTRAR GENERAL OF MONEYLENDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is before this Court in this application filed under Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956. The prayer in the application is to direct the first respondent viz., Registrar of Co -operative Societies and the Registrar General of Money Lenders to surrender the original Dhana Chakra deposit receipts to the Official Liquidator. A prayer is also made in the application to direct the first respondent to pay the damages to the Official Liquidator for unauthorisedly keeping the original Dhana Chakra deposit receipts of the company from the date of winding up i.e., 13.03.2002. M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank with whom the amount had been deposited under the Dhana Chakra deposit scheme has been impleaded as the third respondent. The respondents have filed their objection statement and denied the contention put forth in the application. During the pendency of the instant application, the first respondent has made over the original deposit receipts regarding which the first prayer is made in the instant application, Therefore, insofar as the first prayer, the application has become infructuous.

(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING the said position, the applicant/Official Liquidator has subsequently filed a memo contending that the third respondent -bank should be directed to pay the interest on the said deposit from the date of the maturity of the deposits as indicated in Annexure -A to the application. In response to the said memo, the third respondent -bank have filed their objection statement contending that they are not liable to pay the interest from the date of maturity since there is no provision for automatic renewal and the depositor had not sought for renewal of the deposits from the date of maturity. In that circumstance, the applicant contended that if not the third respondent, at least the first respondent and second respondents should be liable for the damages. Since the issue relating to the claim of interest subsequent to the period of maturity is sought or in the alternative, the damages have been sought, the matter requires consideration in that perspective.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 would contend that the company -in -liquidation was ordered to be wound up on 13.03.2002 and the fixed deposits had matured nearly a year prior to the said date on 14.03.2001 being the last of date of maturity and all other deposits matured prior to the said date as indicated in the statement produced by the applicant as at Annexure -A. In such circumstance, when the said deposits were obtained nominally in the name of the second respondent for the legal compliance for securing Money Lenders licence it was incumbent on the licence -holder to approach the second respondent and seek for renewal of licence or in the alternative for requesting return of the receipts for securing payment of the amount from the bank for the purpose of payment to the company -in -liquidation. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in any event cannot be liable for the actions which have taken place much prior to the date of the winding up order. Hence, it is contended that once the available fixed deposit receipts have been handed over to the Official Liquidator during the pendency of the instant proceedings, nothing more requires to be done by respondents No. 1 and 2 and the application has become infructuous against them.