THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY COMPANY PETITION No.231 of 2013 Dated: 12.08.2014 Between:
Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Rep. by Mr. Eswara Mallikarjuna Rao Regional Legal Remedial Manager/Infrastructure Finance .. Petitioner and M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited, Having its Registered Office at Lanco House, Plot No.4, Software Units Layout, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.
.. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Challa Gunaranjan The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This company petition is filed for an order to wind up the respondent for non-payment of the debt due to the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement, which was filed before the High Court of Delhi. As per the said settlement agreement, the respondent has undertaken to pay Rs.1.06 crores under clause 6(a), Rs.1.00 crore under clause 6(b) and Rs.1.30 crores under clause 6(c). It is not in dispute that payments under clauses 6(a) and (b) were made as per the schedule, while there was delay in making payment under clause 6(c). This Court has permitted the respondent to make payments under clause 6(c), by adjourning the company petition from time to time. The respondent has filed Company Application No.834 of 2014 for granting three weeks’ time to fully comply with clause 6(c). Having regard to the unequivocal undertaking given by the Managing Director of the respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, this Court has adjourned the case to 11.08.2014 for reporting payment. Accordingly, a memo has been filed on behalf of the respondent on 11.08.2014, wherein it is stated that the final payment of Rs.70,22,374/- was made by way of demand draft dated 09.08.2014 and that with the said payment, the entire payment as agreed between the parties was made.
Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria, learned counsel for the petitioner, while admitting that the payment was made as per the settlement, however, stated that as per clause 6(g), in case of default in payments as mentioned in clauses 6(a) to (c) by the respondent, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the revised outstanding amount as on the date of default as per law.
In my opinion, as the respondent has paid the amount agreed under the settlement agreement albeit beyond the schedule agreed between the parties, the company petition is liable to be closed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail common law remedy such as a civil suit for recovery of the balance outstanding amount, if any, based on the default in making payments within the time stipulated in the settlement agreement.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the company petition is closed.
As a sequel to the closure of the company petition, Company Application No.834 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th August, 2014 IBL