M R BHAKSHI Vs. FINTRA SYSTEMS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. P. No. 233/1997 on 17. 01. 2002 counsel for the respondent company made a statement that he has no objection to the company being wound up as prayed in the petition, and the official liquidator being appointed as provisional liquidator of the respondent company. Accordingly, the Court appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator of the respondent company to take charge of the assets and records of the respondent company. Mr. Luthra states that on 30. 04. 2004 the official liquidator sought to institute proceedings under Section 454 of the Companies Act against the ex-directors and also to take action under Section 468 and 477 of the Companies Act against them, for their failure to file a statement of affairs and failure to produce the records and Accounts Books and assets of the company. However, till date the said report filed on 30. 04. 2004 has not been taken up. On account of the non-filing of the statement of affairs by the ex-Directors of the company, the prayer made in this report is allowed and the official liquidator is not only permitted, but also directed to file a criminal complaint under Section 454 of the Companies Act and an application under Section 468 and 477 of the Companies Act for non-filing of the statement of affairs by the ex-directors and not handing over the assets and records respondent company to the official liquidator. Necessary steps be taken within one week. Further report be filed before the next date. CA No. 1017/2002 1. This application has been filed by three applicants namely Sh. Chaman Lal, Mr. M. N. Sobti and Mr. M. K. Kapoor, inter alia, under Section 542 of the Companies Act, against the Managing Director of the company in liquidation Sh. Sunil Shakt. The case of the applicants is that the applicants alongwith hundreds of other unsuspecting investors invested their lifelong savings in the company in liquidation on the promise of handsome returns @ 36% p. a. or thereabout. These investments have, however, gone bad and the reason for the same is stated to be the misappropriation of the funds collected by the company on the aforesaid representation, by its Directors, particularly the Managing Director Sh. Sunil Shakt and his wife Mrs. Shilpi shakt.

(2.) VIDE order dated 01. 11. 1999 after hearing the counsel for the parties the court, keeping in mind the interest of small investors who had invested their entire life savings in the respondent company directed the Central bureau of Investigation (CBI) to enquire into the matter and submit an enquiry report as early as possible. The CBI carried out its investigations and from time to time has filed various reports, which are made a part of this application.

(3.) LEARNED Amicus Curiae has taken me through these reports. It is revealed that the respondent company collected nearly Rs. 5 Crores from about 750 investors, on the assurance of giving them a fixed return of 3% per month which translates to 36% p. a. on various schemes. The third report filed by the CBI on 15. 05. 2000 has particularly been relied upon by the amicus Curiae. From this report, it appears that the aforesaid Directors and their friends incorporated various business entities apart from the company in liquidation. It appears that these entities were merely a front to carry on what, prime facie, appear to be clandestine activities of siphoning off the funds that were being collected by the respondent company and its Directors. The relevant extract from this report reads as follows: -