Paras Pharma Ltd. had accepted deposits since 2002 and regularly paid maturity amounts till 28.02.2013. In 2013, the company started facing liquidity problems and incurred losses. The company filed application before the

The facts of the present case is similar to the case of M/s Ind-Swift Limited (Appellant) vs. Registrar of Companies (Punjab & Chandigarh) (Respondent). In this case NCLAT observed that the NCLT considered that the Appellant had at the time of first grant of time got relief of huge extension and that there was no reason to accept the plea for further extension. The NCLT appears to have found that when big relief had already been granted to the Company, further extension was not justified. Section 76(2) read with Sections 73 and 74 of the Companies Act, 2013 would apply to acceptance of deposits from public by eligible Companies but it saves the Company which had accepted or invited public deposits under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rules there under and has been repaying such deposits and interests thereon in accordance with such provisions, then the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 74 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall be deemed to have been complied with. This is, however, subject to the fact that the Company complies with the requirements under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules and continues to repay such deposits and interest due thereon on due dates for the remaining period" as per the terms and conditions. Considering these provisions, it appears that Section 74(1)(b) the Companies Act, 2013 was attracted and when it appears from record that the Appellant defaulted, the penal provisions would get attracted. Thus, when once a scheme had been got settled, from Company Law Board, default on the part of the Appellant would attract penal provisions as the earlier scheme itself laid down. Hence, present appeal for further extension is dismissed.