M/S Pvr Limited v. M/S Rsa Probuild Pvt Ltd

ORDER

01.11.2011 Present winding up petition has been filed under Sections 433( e) and c 434 and 439 of the Companies Act stating that the respondent is unable to pay its debts as it had failed to refund the security deposit of Rs. 46,82,4001-along with interest. The admitted position is that on the last date of hearing, the principal sum of Rs. 46,82,4001-has been repaid by the respondent to the petitioner. However, Ms. Takiar states that the petitioner still has a claim for interest on T T T T Y-T T I TT T T T T T - f I 'T T T TT T T -. ...,.-y TTTT 11111 * 11 I! -r-.rr Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. - ••1 ................................. . > l the principal security deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the security deposit paid by the petitioner to the respondent was an interest free one and in any event, the Tripartite Agreement dated 30th August, 2006 executed amongst the petitioner, respondent and Mis. MGF Developments Ltd. stood frustrated by the show cause notice dated 1 ih April, 2007 issued by the Archaeological Survey of India and the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 30th May, 2008. Keeping in view the stand of the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the defence set up by the respondent is certainly not a moonshine and a sham. The issue whether the tripartite agreement executed between the parties stood frustrated is a question of fact which needs to be determined after allowing both the parties to lead evidence. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a ·-Y proceeding for recovery of interest, if it so desires. Needless to say, any recovery proceeding initiated by the petitioner would be decided by the appropriate forum in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. The rights and contentions of both the parties are left open. \\---1. MANMOHAN;J NOVEMBER 01, 2011/NG T T l l T"T T I iT T T T T T - - TT TT T • - T "'I ...

I ' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.PET. 54012010 & CAs 2476-247712010 O/o MIS PVR LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate versus MIS RSA PRO BUILD PVT LTD ..... Respondent CORAM: Through: Mr. Abhay Singh with Mr. D.B. Singh, Ms. Yasmin Zafar & Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN