JUDGMENT A.K. Banerji, J.
1. By means of the aforesaid petition filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner, Hi-Tech Gears Ltd. ("the petitioner" in short), has sought the winding up of the company, Yogi Pharmacy Limited, having its registered office at Gurukul Kangri District Hardwar ("the respondent-company" in short) on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts and should be wound up by this court.
2. The petitioner's case in brief is that it is a public limited company engaged in carrying on the business of manufacturing, buying and selling automobile parts, accessories, machinery and other ingredients. On the request made by the respondent-company the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs to the said respondent as intercorporate deposit for a period of three months on an interest of 22 per cent. per annum. To secure payment the respondent-company executed documents details of which are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition. The respondent, however, instead of making payment sought further extension of time by one month. The extension was granted subject to the payment of interest at the rate of 27 per cent. per annum with effect from December 20, 1995. The respondent-company, however, repaid a sum of rupees ten lakhs only and gave another cheque for Rs. 30 lakhs which was dishonoured by the bank. When contacted, the respondent undertook to pay back the entire amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in three equal monthly instalments with interest at the rate of 27 per cent. per annum with effect from January 7, 1996, As the respondent-company failed to keep its promise, the petitioner was constrained to serve a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act on the respondent-company which was not complied with, hence the present petition.
3. On September 29, 1996, this court issued notices to the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be admitted and advertised. In reply to the said notice the company put in appearance and filed a counter-affidavit. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are the ex-directors however, did not file any reply. The respondent-company in its counter-affidavit While not denying the receipt of Rs, 40 lakhs from the petitioner took the plea that the said amount was advanced as a loan and not as an intercorporate deposit. It was also stated that the respondent has every intention to pay back the entire amount to the petitioner but was unable to do so presently as its money is lying blocked with the overseas buyers. The respondent also took the plea that the terms of the agreement were extracted under pressure by the petitioner, and further stated that the interest of the petitioner is fully secured as it is holding shares of the respondent-company to the extent of 85,900 shares as security. It was further stated that the respondent-company is a flourishing concern employing over 300 persons and denied that it is unable to pay its debts. A rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner denying the allegation that the money was advanced as a loan and not as an intercorporate deposit. It was also stated that the security of shares of 85, 900 was given by the guarantors and not by the company besides the value of shares was below par and even if it is sold at its face value it will fetch Rs. 8,50,000 and will not satisfy the dues of the petitioner.
4. I have heard Sri R. P. Goel and Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. M. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-company, on the question whether the petition should be admitted and advertised. It is noteworthy that the respondent-company has not denied the fact that it has to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs along with interest as agreed. What has been stated is that presently their moneys are lying blocked and the payment may be delayed. However, on the merits of the petition learned counsel has raised certain legal arguments. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner carries on the business of money lending and the present petition for winding up has been filed to recover a loan, consequently it has to obtain a certificate of registration under the U. P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976, unless this is done the loan cannot be recovered and it cannot be treated to be a debt within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. This submission appears to be misconceived. The U. P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 29 of 1976), was enacted for the purpose of regularisation of money lending transactions and for the registration of money lenders and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, This Act will not apply to the petitioner, firstly, because Section 2 of the said Act has exempted the Government, local authorities statutory corporations and public companies (as defined in the Companies Act) from the purview of Act No. 29 of 1976 in respect of any loan, advance or deposit. Secondly, Section 3(6) of the said Act defines "money lender" as a person who carries on the business of money lending. The respondent has not placed any material on the record to show that the petitioner carries on the business of money lending. On the contrary paragraph 1(a) of the petition mentions the objects for which the petitioner-company was incorporated. Money lending business is not mentioned. In this connection, Article 111(11) of the articles of association which is quoted in paragraph 1 of the petition is relevant. It authorises the company to invest and deal with any moneys of the company not immediately required for the purpose thereof upon such security or without security and in such manner as thought fit. Therefore, the board of directors of the petitioner by a resolution dated May 26, 1965, permitted placement of funds of the company as intercorporate deposit. That apart, Section 292(1)(d) and (e) of the Companies Act empowers the board of directors to invest the funds of the company and also gives the power to make loans. Therefore, the resolution passed by the board of directors of the petitioner regarding investment of their surplus funds for the purposes of intercorporate deposit was permissible under the Act as well as in accordance with the articles of association of the company. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a money lender within the meaning of U. P. Act No. 29 of 1976, and it requires to take a certificate for registration under Section 7 of the said Act. Besides, the winding up petition is not akin to a suit for recovery of loan for which a bar is created under Section 18 of the Act. Further, it is worthy of note that the board of directors of the respondent-company had also passed a resolution dated September 11, 1995, according consent to accept intercorporate deposit from the petitioner of Rs. 40 lakhs bearing interest of 22 per cent. per annum. In view of the said resolution it cannot be now said that what was accepted was a loan and not an intercorporate deposit. Prima facie, therefore, I do not find any substance in the first submission made by learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel then contended that the amount could not be legally recovered from the respondent-company as the petitioner was in a dominant position and extracted the terms of agreement for which the managing director was not empowered for instance the rate of interest. The said agreement, therefore, was not an act of free consent as defined under Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, but as a result of coercion and undue influence. 1 am prima facie unable to accept this submission either, There is no specific pleading that the agreement was not out of free consent of the respondent-company and as a result of coercion or undue influence. In the counter-affidavit it has been very vaguely stated that the managing director was pressurized to enter into the agreement. Even the said plea has not been substantiated. One fails to understand what could be the pressure, undue influence, or coercion exercised by the petitioner over the managing director. It has been stated in the petition and has not been denied, that the respondent had approached the petitioner for an intercorporate deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The petitioner agreed to give Rs. 40 lakhs for a period of three months on an interest of 22.5 per cent. which subsequently, on the request of the respondent was reduced to 22 per cent. The board of directors of the respondent-company accepted the said terms and passed a resolution to the said effect. They also agreed to secure the payment by executing certain documents. If they were not agreeable to the terms of the petitioner it was open to them to refuse to sign the agreement and search for another party which would offer better terms. The managing director of the respondent-company was one of the promoters of the said company. He and his wife owned a substantial number of shares of the said company. It cannot be accepted that the managing director could be coerced by the petitioner in accepting the terms. It has been held by a Division Bench in the case of Sarju Pd. v. Jatan Singh [1936] AWR 84, that the mere need for raising a loan is not by itself sufficient to enable a debtor to avoid his agreement on the ground of coercion. Similarly, another Division Bench of this court in the case of Muhammad Said Khan v. Indarpati Singh, AIR 1927 All 315, held that the exaction of excessive and usurious interest even though there may be ample security does not by itself raise any presumption of undue influence, unless it is first established that the lender was in a position to dominate the borrowers well. It was further held that the circumstance of the executant of any instrument of obligation being in great need of money is not sufficient to presume undue influence. Similar observations have been made by the Privy Council in the case of Barkatunnisa Begum v. Debi Baksh, AIR 1927 PC 84. It has not been stated in the counter-affidavit nor has learned counsel for the respondent-company been able to show how the petitioner dominated the will of the managing director. Learned counsel for the respondent-company cited the following decisions on the question of coercion, undue influence and free consent :
1. Karnal Distillery Co. v. Ladli Parshad, AIR 1958 Punj 190.
2. AIR 1980 Patna 680 (sic).
3. Sheocharen v. Channulal, AIR 1931 Nagpur 63.
4. U. P. Government v. J. R. Bhatta, AIR 1956 All 439.
6. I have perused the aforesaid decisions but I am of the opinion that they are clearly distinguishable, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of what has been stated above, none of these are of any help to the respondent. Consequently, prima facie I do not find any merit in the second submission of learned counsel.
7. It was then contended that the managing director was not authorised to agree to pay interest at the rate of 27 per cent. and, consequently, also the petitioner is not entitled to recover the said amount. So far as this submission is concerned, Sri K. K. Dhawan, who was one of the promoters director of the company and also the managing director at the relevant time, was authorised by the board of directors as evident from A-22 to execute the necessary documents with such modification/alteration as required. The interest agreed finally was 22 per cent. However, as the respondent defaulted in payment and sought further extension they agreed to pay interest at the rate of 27 per cent. per annum with effect from January, 7, 1996. I am prima facie of the view that the managing director was duly empowered to agree to the said increase in the facts and the circumstances specially when the company had sought extension and were unable to pay back the amount due. That apart it has been observed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Kishan Rathi v. Mon-dal Brothers and Co. P. Ltd. [1967] 37 Comp Cas 256, 263 ; AIR 1967 Cal 75, 79, as follows :
"A person taking in due course a bill of exchange or hundi by a director who, consistently with the company's articles, might have been, but who was not in fact authorised to sign bills or hundis is upon the principle of Royal British Bank v. Turquand [1856] 6 EL and BL 327, entitled to assume that the director was 'acting under its authority' when he signed the bill and to recover on the bill or hundi against the company accordingly."
8. Respectfully agreeing with the aforesaid observations of the Calcutta High Court I am of the view the petitioner was a bona fide creditor who lent money by way of an intercorporate deposit and has, therefore, a right to assume as against the company that all requirements of the management have been complied with such as necessary resolutions are there on the directors' books to make them regular and that the directors have contracted according to procedure enjoined in the board meeting, Therefore, I do not find any substance in this argument either.
9. This takes us to the last submission of learned counsel for the respondent-company who has contended that this winding up petition is not maintainable as the petitioner held adequate security in the shape of equity shares and could realise its dues by disposing of the said shares. Therefore, in such a situation it cannot be said that the company is unable to pay its dues and should be wound up.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has contended that the security which was given by the executive director of the company in the shape of 85, 900 equity shares was not an adequate security, because the shares of the respondent-company were listed in the stock exchange and they were being quoted below the par value of Rs. 10 per share. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has invited the attention of the court to annexures Nos. RA-2 and RA-3 filed along with the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel has also contended that the aforesaid shares were in the name of the managing director, K.K. Dha-wan, and his wife, Veena Dhawan, and were not in the name of the company. The shares were in four lots of 40,000 2,700, 27, 900 and 10,000 whereas the marketable lot as per the SEBI Guidelines was of 100 shares. Though the said directors had given four signed transfer forms to the petitioner, the same were only valid for one year which expired on December 19, 1996. Besides, the shares which were given to the petitioner had a lock-in period of three years upto March 31, 1999, and hence they were not tradeable. The shares could not be sold in the stock market unless transferred in the name of the petitioner-company. The petitioner had also asked the respondent-company through letters dated May 11, 1996, and June 17, 1996, to split the subject shares in marketable lots of 100 each. However, the same was not done. In support of its case, that there was a lock-in period of three years for the said shares, the petitioner has filed a copy of the letter from the U. P. Stock Exchange along with the rejoinder affidavit. In the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-company it has not been denied that the shares given in security stood in the name of the managing director and his wife. It has also not been denied that the same were not in marketable lots or that the period for which the transfer deed was given had expired. It was also not denied that there was a lock-in period of three years. What has been stated is that the lots could be made into marketable lots within two days if so desired by the petitioner. The transfer deed could be revalidated or a fresh deed could be issued to the petitioner if they asked for it and the lock-in-period could be reduced by the SEBI, in case a request was made to them, So far as the value of the shares are concerned it has not been denied that in December, 1996, the shares were being quoted below par, What has been stated is that the value of the shares had gone up in June, 1996, and the petitioner could have disposed of the shares at that time, Having considered the respective contention of learned counsel, prima facie, I find substance in the submission made by the petitioner that the shares which had been given by the two directors of the company as security under the circumstances could not be treated to be adequate security because even if they were sold presently at the face value they will fetch a sum of Rs. 8,50,000 only provided all the formalities are completed whereas the amount which is admittedly due to the petitioner is of a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs besides interest. Prima facie, therefore, I do not find any substance in the last submission made by learned counsel for the respondent company either.
11. It has been noticed that the respondent-company was not denying its liability to pay the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs along with interest. The directors of the respondent-company had passed a resolution agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 22 per cent. per annum. As a matter of fact interest from December 19, 1995, to January 6, 1996, amounting to over Rs. 33,000 had been paid by the respondent-company. They had also agreed to pay the penal interest at the rate of 27 per cent. when they defaulted in making payment as per the agreement. The respondent-company had admittedly received the statutory notice but had failed to give any reply to the same. In this view of the matter as the amount due is not disputed, prima facie, I do not find any justification for the respondent-company in not paying the said amount. The case for admitting this petition and for advertising the same under Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, is thus made out. However, as learned counsel for the respondent has stated the company is a running concern and is carrying on its business. It also employs about 300 persons and as the publication of the advertisement might have serious consequences and affect the business of the respondent-company, I consider it expedient in the interest of justice to stay the publication of the advertisement for a period of two months from today provided the respondent-company deposits a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs (the principal sum due) in two equal instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 15 lakhs shall be deposited by means of a bank draft in the name of the petitioner before this court within one month, thereafter. On the deposit of the said amounts further orders including payment of interest will follow. However, in case there is any default on the part of the respondent-company in complying with these directions, the petitioner can take steps to advertise the petition in accordance with Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules.
12. List this case immediately after the expiry of one month from today for further orders.