Federal Zinc Ltd., is a listed entity. It accepted deposits from public. The amount of deposits as on 31st March, 2022 stood at ₹ 15 crore by 1500 depositors. Some of the deposits amounting to ₹ 5 crore belonging to 125
CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2023
Federal Zinc Ltd., is a listed entity. It accepted deposits from public. The amount of deposits as on 31st March, 2022 stood at ₹ 15 crore by 1500 depositors. Some of the deposits amounting to ₹ 5 crore belonging to 125 depositors matured in the month of June 2022. However, the company did not pay the amount to the depositors due to liquidity issues. The company issued letters to all such depositors requesting them to wait for some time and also assured them to pay the overdue interest on the matured amount. However, even after lapse of the 6 months from the due date, the company did not repay the due amount to the depositors. What recourse is available to the depositors? Refer to relevant provisions of the law.
Answer & Explanation:
There are two remedies available to depositors under the Companies Act, 2013 (the Act): Action against the company in NCLT individually Class action suit by depositors Action against the company in NCLT individually According to Section 73(3) of the Act, every deposit accepted by a company under Section 77(2) shall be repaid with interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Further, as per Section 73(4) of the Act, where a company fails to repay the deposit or part thereof or any interest thereon under Section 73(3), the depositor concerned may apply to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for an order directing the company to pay the sum due or for any loss or damage incurred by him as a result of such non-payment and for such other orders as NCLT may deem fit. Accordingly, unless the action of the company is in line with the Agreement under Section 73(2), the depositors may apply to the NCLT under Section 73(4) for appropriate orders. Class action suit by depositors According to Section 245(1) of the Act, such number of member or members, depositor or depositors or any class of them, as the case may be, as are indicated in Section 245(2) may, if they are of the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company or its members or depositors, file an application before the National Company Law Tribunal on behalf of the members or depositors for seeking the remedies. According to Section 245(3)(ii) of the Act, the requisite number of depositors provided in Section 245(1) shall not be less than one hundred depositors or not less than such percentage of the total number of depositors as may be prescribed, whichever is less, or any depositor or depositors to whom the company owes such percentage of total deposits of the company as may be prescribed. Rule 84 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 provides the provisions relating to Right to apply under Section 245. Rule 84(4) states: The requisite number of depositor or depositors to file an application under Section 245(1) shall be: (a) at least five per cent. of the total number of depositors of the company; or (b) one hundred depositors of the company, whichever is less; or; depositor or depositors to whom the company owes five per cent. of total deposits of the company. In the given situation: Total number of depositors: 1500. 5% of 1500 is 75. Thus, in terms of Rule 84(4) of NCLT Rules, 2016, the requisite number of depositors to file an application is the lesser of 75 depositors or 100 depositors, which is 75 depositors . Total deposits: ₹ 15 crore. Company owes ₹ 5 crore (33.33%) from these depositors. Therefore, the depositors can take action against the company in NCLT individually under Section 73 of the Act and a class action suit under Section 245 of the Act.
Topics: Corporate Deposits
Related Questions in this Topic
- Differentiate between Punishment for False Statement and Punishment for False Evidence under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Mr. P who was a Managing Director of XYZ Ltd, was terminated from the position of Managing Director by virtue of an orde...
- Amit Sinha, commonly known as Sethji, has been accused of certain offenses under the SEBI Act, 1992. SEBI directed him t...
- State the punishment prescribed under Companies Act, 2013 for the following: (iv) Improper use of words "Limited" or "Pr...
- State the punishment prescribed under Companies Act, 2013 for the following: (iii) Punishment for wrongful withholding o...