PRAMOD GUPTA Vs. ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 25/8/1993 & 26/8/1993 is challenged in Co.A.27/93 by Ms.Pramod Gupta and Mr.Sanjay Gupta, hereinafter called respondents 2 & 3 as per the array of parties in the application filed by the ANZ Grindlays Bank, hereinafter called the `Bank', before the Company Law Board. In Co.A.6/94, the Bank has filed the appeal challenging the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 15/3/1994 & 16/3/1994. In Co.A.8/94 the order dated 15/3/1994 & 16/3/1994 passed by the Company Law Board is challenged by respondents 2 & 3.

(2.) Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties in the application filed by the Bank before the Company Law Board, out of which the three appeals had arisen, the facts culminating in the filing of the Company Petition filed by the Bank under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereafter called the `1956 Act', and the filing of the appeals have to be noticed.

(3.) The genesis, as it were, of the present dispute was the purchase of bonds by respondents 2 & 3 issued by the National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited, hereinafter called the `NHPC Ltd'. The bond was purchased which had the face value of Rs.9,06,34,000 with interest warrants payable on the 31st of March and the 30th of September of each year. The interest warrants were issued by the NHPC Ltd. by way of post dated cheques payable, as stated above, on the 31st of March and the 30th of September every year. The interest warrants are detachable from the bond and the each of the interest warrants/post dated cheque is a negotiable instrument independently.