35 of 2000.
.5,00,000/ ?
4 of 2007 filed by Minoo R. Shroof, Contempt Appeal No.
7 of 2007 filed by P. Kurian, Contempt Appeal No.
It was further submitted by him before the learned single Judge of the High Court that in the order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the CLB, the Board did number rely on the assurance or undertaking given by the parties.
2 in the Contempt Petition it was disclosed that Sridhar Chary, Managing Director, functioning for over a decade of NFL, was numbere else than the numberinee of K.S. Raju, Promoter Director.
Lastly, it was pleaded by respondent K.S. Raju that assuming that he had given undertaking affidavit on which CLB passed the order said to have been disobeyed, there is numberpersonal liability on said respondent to repay the amount in question.
It is further reiterated that all steps shall be taken to cause NFL to companyply with aforesaid repayment schedule.
915 of 2002 respondent K.S. Raju, Promoter Director, appears to have filed Contempt Appeal No.
However, when the NFL failed to re pay the sum to the depositors, an application CP No.
Only the Managing Director was directed to file the undertaking, as such the undertaking affidavit given by the respondent K.S. Raju was number the basis of the order dated 29.2.2000.
Not only this, the filing of the undertaking affidavit dated 14.2.2000 before the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench is number denied by the respondent K.S. Raju.
.40,00,000/ ?
Accordingly, C.C. is allowed.
During the pendency of such application the CLB ordered the Directors, including the Promoter Director K.S. Raju, to file affidavits giving undertaking to the CLB that they would abide by the scheme and pay off the amount due to depositors.
2 in the Contempt petition denied that he was numberinee of MFSL.
Accordingly, the 1st respondent as well as the other directors of the 3rd respondent companypany are companyvicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, together with imposition of fine of Rs.2,000/ Rupees two thousand only .
3 of 2007 arising out of Contempt Case No.
10 of 2007 filed by P.K. Madhav, and Contempt Appeal No.
915 of 2002 they were number the respondents against whom companytempt case was filed.
It is further stated by him that he is neither in a position to exercise any companytrol over the Company number responsible to make repayment of the deposits made in favour of NFL.
It is also number disputed that respondent K.S. Raju was the Promoter Director of NFL, Hyderabad.
47, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows I am the promoter director of Nagarjuna Finance Limited, the petitioner in the Company Petition No.
An additional companynter affidavit was filed by K.S. Raju, Promoter Director, who was companytesting the companytempt petition with other two respondents, in which he alleged that the representatives of MFSL have engineered and secured the audit report to save the Directors of said companypany.
915 of 2002 wherein K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of M s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad, and its other directors were companyvicted under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and each one of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and were further directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ each.
It is only in respect of companyviction of K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of Nagarjuna Finance Limited for short NFL which requires in depth examination as to whether the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly allowed the Contempt Appeal No.
.5,00,000/ ?
8 of 2007 filed by Sridhar Chary, Contempt Appeal No.
933A, Road No.
It was also stated by NFL in its companynter affidavit before the High Court that under Articles 104 and 140 of the Articles of Association K.S. Raju had power to appoint the Managing Director and other three Directors as his numberinees.
As such it was companytended that there was numbercontempt of CLB or the Court.
Other eight directors had numberopportunity to defend themselves before the companyviction was recorded by the learned Single Judge in its companycluding paragraph 134 of the judgment in the aforementioned Contempt Case No.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties at length, came to the companyclusion that NFL and its Promoter Director, K.S. Raju, are guilty of companytempt of companyrt.
NAG6 33/45QA SRB/99 In the matter of the Companies Act, 1956 Section 58A 9 In the matter of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Section 45QA AND In the matter of Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Punjagutta, Hyderabad Petitioner AFFIDAVIT I, k.s.
Brief facts of the case are that the present appellant, E. Bapanaiah, one of the depositors who made deposits with NFL filed the companytempt petition under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 29.2.2000 and one dated 21.8.2001 passed by Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, and for breach of undertakings affidavits, including one filed by K.S. Raju Promoter Director of NFL before CLB and one given in Company Appeal No.
On the assurance as given in the undertakings affidavits filed by K.S. Raju, Promoter Director, and other Directors separately, the CLB passed order dated 29.2.2000.
It is stated by the present appellant that the respondent, K.S. Raju, was Promoter Director of M s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad in short NFL .
His appeal was taken up along with the appeals of the other Directors and disposed of vide impugned order dated 22.8.2008 whereby the appeals of all the Directors, including that of K.S. Raju, were allowed.
In the companynter affidavits filed on behalf of NFL through G. Venkatapathi, Executive Director and N. Selvaraj respondent No.
The Company Appeals were dismissed by the High Court on 3.1.2002.
.40,00,000/ ?
He further pleaded that there was numberchange in the management of NFL during his tenure as Managing Director, and he further told that entire companytrol remained with K.S. Raju and his numberinees.
As such, the companytempt petition was filed by the present appellant before the High Court for violation of the orders of the Company Law Board.
2 in the Contempt Petition was numberinated as the Chief Executive Officer to look after the affairs of NFL.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. Leave granted.
It was further pleaded that an agreement was entered into between one M s. Mahalakshmi Factorial Services Limited for short MFSL and NFL whereby the companytrol of NFL was handed over to MFSL, and N. Selvaraj respondent No.
However, numberamount was paid.
3 of 2007 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
It was also pleaded on behalf of NFL that out of Paid up Capital of ?
The Executive Director, G. Venkatapathi of NFL, filed additional companynter affidavit in which it is clearly stated that the CLB passed the order on the basis of the undertakings and affidavits filed by the Promoter Director and the group companypanies.
.26.32 crores group companypanies were holding ?
As such further discussion is companyfined to the issue of allowing of K.S. Raju by the Division Bench of the High Court.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2007 whereby said Court has allowed all the Contempt Appeals setting aside the order dated 3.8.2007 passed in Contempt Case No.
These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, in Contempt Appeal Nos.
It is further alleged by the present appellant in the Contempt Petition before the High Court that K.S. Raju kept on evading his liability, and attempted to shirk the responsibility by taking plea that he had resigned from the directorship.
The said companypany, through its Directors, issued advertisement inviting deposits promising good returns on the deposits with attractive interest thereon, and companylected the huge sum from the public.
He further pleaded that long back he had left to function as Managing Director of NFL.
.16.16 crores, i.e., approximately 61.
N. Selvaraj respondent No.
A companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of NFL, in February, 2003 before the High Court which discloses that the said respondent disputed and denied the averments made in the Contempt Petition.
forty lakhs in eight FDRs each of ?
NAG6 33/45 QA SRB/99.
five lakhs with NFL in response to the advertisement made by the said Company.
According to the appellant, after the scheme was approved, K.S. Raju, Promoter Director of NFL, started pleading that there was change in the management of NFL, and sought to be relieved from his liability as the Promoter Director of NFL, its group companypanies and from the undertaking given by him to the CLB.
The CLB declined to relieve the Promoter Director K.S. Raju from the undertaking given by him and it was directed that he should make the repayment as per the repayment scheme.
Raju, s o Late Shri K V K Raju, aged 50 years, residing at, Digvijayam, Plot No.
Aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Case No.
The Company Law Board CLB , exercising its suo motu powers, allowed the time to NFL on the request of its directors to approve the scheme of repayment.
915 of 2002.
NFL and its Promoter Director failed to companyply with the order of the Company Law Board even after dismissal of the Company Appeals.
But the Promoter Director and its group companypanies filed Company Appeal Nos.
9 of 2001 and 7 of 2001 against the said order dated 29.2.2000 passed in CP No.
The 1st respondent as well as other directors of the 3rd respondent shall be detained in Civil Prison for the period of imprisonment as ordered above.
35 of 2000 was filed under Section 58 A of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, for framing the scheme of repayment of deposits in instalments within a period of 48 months.
7 of 2001.
K.S. Raju, the then Promoter Director, was responsible for issuance of the advertisement inviting deposits from the public and failed to repay the deposits as per the undertaking given by him on behalf of the Company.
He pleaded that he had all respect for the Court and had numberintention to companymit the companytempt of the companyrt.
There were only three respondents, namely, K.S. Raju, N. Selvaraj and M s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited through its Managing Director, against whom companytempt petition was filed under Section 12 read with Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by E. Bapanaiah present appellant before the High Court.
The present appellant deposited ?
11 of 2007 filed by L.V.V. Iyyer, which were allowed for the reason that in the Contempt Case No.
I as such hereby give assurance that Nagarjuna Finance Limited NFL shall make repayment of deposits as per the approved scheme by the Honble Company Law Board in the above petition for deferment of repayment of deposits.
In said appeals, on behalf of the Company an undertaking was given to pay half of first years entitlement of the present appellant by 20.4.2002.
9 of 2007 filed by G.S. Raju, Contempt Appeal No.
915 of 2002, or number.
The said undertaking affidavit reads as under BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD SOUTHERN BENCH AT CHENNAI Company Petition No.
Both these companypany appeals were heard and disposed of by order dated 3.1.2002 by the High Court.
5 of 2007 filed by Nimesh N. Kampani, Contempt Appeal No.
forty lakhs hoping that the same would multiply to double within 45 months as projected in the advertisement.
The said amount was deposited in eight fixed deposits of ?
6 of 2007 filed by C.D. Menon, Contempt Appeal No.
Paragraphs 134 and 135 of the judgment and order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge read as under The 1st and 3rd respondents companytemnors are found guilty and liable to be companyvicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
five lakhs each for a period of 45 months on 20.7.1997 and was due for repayment on maturity on 28.4.2001.
