Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~C-18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CO.A(SB) 1/2016
INPAC HOTELS & RESORTS P. LTD. & ANR. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Advocate
versus
SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAISWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.H.L.Tiku, Sr Advocate with Ms.Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
O R D E R %
10.10.2017 CA No.1633/2017
On 26.09.2017 following order was passed by this Court:- “The order dated 29.01.2016 records that an amount of Rs.7.00 Crores have been deposited in lieu of the share transferred to respondent No.2. Now, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and it is agreed that the principal amount of Rs.7.00 Crores lying deposited with this Court in the form of interest bearing FDR shall go to respondent No.1. However, out of the total interest accrued on the FDR - 60% of such interest from the date of deposit till date shall go to the appellant and remaining 40% of interest shall go to respondent No.1. On receipt of payments as above, none of the parties shall have any claim against each other. The respondent No.1 shall withdraw the proceedings pending before the NCLT. The registry is directed to disburse the
amount in the above manner within two weeks to the parties and payment to respondent No.1 be disbursed through his Power of Attorney holder. In view of above, the petition and pending applications are disposed of having been settled. No order as to cost.”
The appellant has now moved this application to clarify the order dated 26.09.2017 to the extent that the amount of Rs.7.00 Crore to be released by the Registrar General of this Court to the respondent, be subject to para 38 of order dated 01.10.2015 of the Company Law Board which read as under:- “38. This Bench further directs the petitioner to deposit `1 crore, i.e., above 10% of `7crores in fixed account for one year, on payment of above amount by the respondents, so that Income Tax Authorities will withdraw the tax deduction from this fixed deposit, if at all it is payable, after assessment has been made, the petitioner, then, is at liberty to withdraw the remaining balance from the fixed deposit.”
After hearing both the sides, with the consent of parties, it is clarified that the tax liability, if arises, shall be subject to para 38 above and to Section 115 (QA) of the Income Tax Act and shall be payable by the party liable, as per law.
The learned senior counsel for the respondent has now referred to page No.82 and 83 of the Co.A(SB) No.1/2016 to say that the signatures purportedly to be of one Sh.Naresh Kumar Sharma infact are the signatures of Mr.K.L.Bahl as the signatures of Mr.Naresh Kumar Sharma are totally different as is on share transfer certificate
at page No.254.
The learned senior counsel for the respondent refers to reply dated 16.05.2012 filed before the Company Law Board to show the signatures of Mr.K.L.Bahl, which in fact appear on page Nos.82 and 83 of this appeal.
Notice is issued to Mr.K.L.Bahl and Mr.Naresh Kumar Sharma both directors, to explain. Reply, if any, be filed by them within a week from today.
List on 21.11.2017.
YOGESH KHANNA, J OCTOBER 10, 2017 M