UNIPLAS INDIA LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Northern Regional Bench received applications under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act (hereinafter called "the Act") from certain depositors complaining against non-repayment of fixed deposits by Uniplas India Ltd. (hereinafter called "the company"). THE following major deposits have matured but were not repaid :

(2.) In addition, from the statement of other small deposits matured, but not repaid, as submitted by the company it is also found that an amount of Rs. 26,43,671 towards 207 depositors has become due. This was the position as of November, 1996, of outstanding deposits as filed by the company as per our directions. However, a perusal of the balance-sheet of the company as on June 30, 1996, filed by the company shows that the total outstanding position of fixed deposits including interest accrued and due thereon amounted to Rs. 3,94,67,858. In addition, the company also had outstanding intercorporate deposits including interest accrued and due of Rs. 12,63,95,743 as on June 30, 1996, which are, however, not covered by Section 58A(9) of the Act. It is informed during the hearing that some of the intercorporate depositors have initiated action against the company in the High Court of Delhi. As directed by the Delhi High Court, it is understood that the company discussed repayment plans with the intercorporate depositors and has proposed repayment of those deposits over a period of three and a half years.

(3.) AT the hearing held in October, 1996, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the company insisted on the Bench approving the repayment plan of three and a half years. He also expressed the inability of the company to secure the liability to depositors as per the repayment plan. AT the hearing held in December, 1996, however, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, brought to the notice of the Bench that the company has become a sick company and accordingly a reference under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), has been filed before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). Consequently, he submitted that in view of Section 22 of the SICA, the proceedings before this Bench under Section 58A(9) of the Act will have to be suspended. Since the depositors were unaware of this development, and were not prepared to make counter legal submissions immediately, they sought further time which was granted.