P. Provisions
Provisions are recognized when, as a result of a past event, the Company has a legal or
constructive obligation; it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle
the obligation; and the amount can be reliably estimated. The amount so recognized is a best
estimate of the consideration required to settle the obligation at the reporting date, taking into
account the risks and uncertainties surrounding the obligation.
In an event when the time value of money is material, the provision is carried at the present
value of the cash flows estimated to settle the obligation.
Q. Operating Segment
The Company is engaged in a single segment i.e. financing Operations viz., inter corporate
deposits and investments. Presently Company is not carrying on any operation except realizing
all debts or maintaining existing assets. The operating results are regularly reviewed and
performance is assessed by its Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM). All the company’s
resources are dedicated to this single segment and all the discrete financial information is
available for this segment.
R. Earnings per share
Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing profit or loss attributable to the owners of
the company by weighted average number of equity shares outstanding during the financial
year. The weighted average number of equity shares outstanding during the year is adjusted
for events of bonus issue, share split and any new equity issue. For the purpose of calculating
diluted earnings per share, profit or loss attributable to the owners of the Company and the
weighted average number of shares outstanding during the year are adjusted for the effects of
all dilutive potential equity shares.
S. Contingent liabilities
A disclosure for a contingent liability is made when there is a possible obligation or a present
obligation that may, but probably will not require an outflow of resources. When there is
a possible obligation or a present obligation in respect of which the likelihood on outflow of
resources is remote, no provision or disclosure is made.
T. Financial and Management Information Systems
The Company’s Accounting System is designed to unify the Financial Records and also to
comply with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, to provide financial and cost
information appropriate to the businesses and facilitate Internal Control.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported
amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the results of operations during the reporting period end. Although these
estimates are based upon management’s best knowledge of current events and actions, actual
results could differ from these estimates.
The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to
accounting estimates are recognized in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision
affects only that period or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects
both current and future periods.
Additional Notes to Accounts
26) RESTRUCTURING SCHEME
Preamble
The management for a structured debt repayment had prepared two schemes of arrangement
for reorganization of share capital of the company and for compromise with its secured and
unsecured creditors. Both the schemes of arrangement envisage a viable, just & equitable
settlement with its secured and unsecured creditors while simultaneously increasing the risk and
stake of the promoters and their shareholding through fresh infusion of funds by the promoter
company.
The company moved an application before the Hon’ble Company Law Board, New Delhi on
22nd July 2004 under Regulation 44 of the Company Law Regulations, 1991 proposing a
fresh repayment schedule to fixed depositors of the Company. The same repayment schedule
included in the “Fresh Restructuring Scheme” filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi on 24th September 2004.
The implementation of the schemes is subject to the fulfillment of all the conditions of erstwhile
section 391 to section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and approval/orders of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not approve the company’s first scheme
filed in May 2000, though approved by the secured and unsecured creditors in their respective
meetings convened pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Court, yet the Hon’ble Court did not
accord sanction to the scheme on technical grounds. An application for review had been filed
before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 30th May 2003, which is not yet to be listed for hearing
and which is hereinafter, wherever applicable, referred to as the “Old scheme under review”.
The company intends not to pursue the review application filed for the old scheme under review
before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and it is proposed to be withdrawn at an appropriate stage
of the proceedings for the sanction of the “Fresh Restructuring Scheme”.
The company filed a fresh Scheme of Arrangement for the reorganization of the share capital
of the company and for compromise with the secured and unsecured creditors of the company,
hereinafter referred to as the “Fresh Restructuring Scheme” before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
at New Delhi on 24th September 2004.
Pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the unsecured creditors and debenture
holders in their meeting convened under the Chairpersonship of court appointed Chairpersons
(retired Judges of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) on 1 stApril 2005 and 2nd April, 2005 have
approved the scheme without any modifications with the requisite majority. The meeting of the
other secured creditors (banks/ institutions) was held on 17thSeptember 2005 and has also
approved the scheme by the requisite majority after considering some modifications proposed
by the Punjab & Sind Bank.
The promoter company has undertaken, subject to sanction of the scheme by the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court, to contribute to Rs. 1,950.00 lacs of which Rs. 1,560.00 lacs were deposited with the
Registrar of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Registrar, as per court order by the promoter group,
and the balance amount of Rs 390.00 lacs had been deposited with the Registrar of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court Registrar on 27th April, 2012.
The restructured debts of the company for each category of debt is on the basis of outstanding
as envisaged in the fresh restructuring scheme filed in the year 2004 excluding interest not
provided for and all liquidated damages/penal charges and interest on unpaid interest. The
“Fresh Scheme of Arrangement” is drawn on the basis of acceptance of waiver of payment of
past and future interest, penal charges, liquidated damages, and any other charges, costs and
claims etc. except as provided and for values contained therein which is subject to the approval
of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Over the years and till 31st March, 2017, the accounts of the company have been drawn on
the assumption that the “fresh restructuring scheme” will be accepted and implemented. If it is
not accepted and cannot be implemented for any reason the total liability before the proposed
restructuring scheme including those for which no provision has been made and has been
quantified under appropriate heads, shall become payable.
Developments till the financial year ended 31st March 2024
Justice Anil Kumar* as one-man committee was appointed vide order dated: - 3rd September,
2015 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to scrutinize the list of depositors and other claimants
and to take steps enumerated hereinafter with the view to resolve at-least some of the disputes.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi entrusted the following functions to said One Man Committee: -
(i) To scrutinize and finalize the list of depositors/ claimants so as to assess the genuineness
of the depositors and their claim and to weed out any duplicate) benami, fictitious and
doubtful claims.
(ii) To categorize the claimants/ depositors into groups, on the basis of various parameters. For
instance, depositors could be segregated into (a) individuals (b) corporate (c) institutions
(Banks and Finance Companies), etc. Similarly, very small depositors wherein, the amount
due is only up to Rs. 0.05 lacs could be segregated as a separate category.
(iii) At the same time, it would also be open to the Central Bank of India which was constituted
a debenture trustee by the company, to put up any claims that they may have before the
said committee.
(iv) To take stock of the entire assets of the company, whether in the form of fixed assets or
bank accounts and fixed deposits, etc.
(v) To assess the value of the fixed assets of the company and for the purpose, if need be,
take the help of a professional valuer. Also, to get from the company its brief statement of
accounts which shall include all income and expenditures, so as to enable a proper review
of the assets and liabilities of the company.
(vi) To suggest modalities for the disposal of fixed assets, so that the money realized could
be used for disbursal of principal amounts as well as interest (over the delayed period), if
possible, amongst the depositors.
(vii) To make suggestions on the modalities of payment, which would obviously depend upon the
amounts finally realized after disposing off/ liquefying all assets of the company.
*The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has appointed Mr. Laxmi Kant Gaur, District Judge (Red.)
vide its order dated 29th July 2021, as the One-Man Committee in place of Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Anil Kumar (in view of his unfortunate demise). The One-Man Committee would
continue from the stage at which the exercise assigned to the One-Man Committee by
the High Court stands, at the stage when Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar unfortunately
expired. The agenda of the One-Man Committee would be as per the order dated 3rd
September, 2015, read with subsequent orders passed, if any, in that regard. The One-
Man Committee would be entitled to remuneration of Rs. 1 lakh per month to be paid from
the account of the Company.
The one-man committee submitted its report on to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 22nd
April, 2016. Taking cognizance of the report, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 10th August,
2017 accepted the recommendation of one-man committee enumerated in the report.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also noted that none of the parties had any objection on
the implementation of the report. The task of implementing the report was also assigned
to Justice Anil Kumar. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the issue of revival of the
company will be decided once all payments are made in the manner as suggested in the
report. The report of one committee has laid the schedule of payments to parties covered
under the scheme as under: -
(i) Before starting repayment of amount, the genuineness of the all the depositors and
their claims shall be assessed to weed out any benami, fictitious and doubtful claims.
Notices to all the depositors / claimants shall be sent and consideration of their please
and contentions will be necessary. From the data it has also been observed that
some of the individuals and companies have invested sums by depositing multiple
small amounts. Committee observed that it already has sufficient funds, ready cash,
to repay about 70% of the deposits to all the depositors having deposits of more than
Rs 0.05 lacs including secured creditors in the first stage. It is recommended in the
circumstances that 70% a part of the amount be paid to the creditors having deposits
of more than Rs. 0.05 lacs and full amount be paid to those who have deposits of Rs.
0.05 lacs or less than Rs. 0.05 lacs in the first instance.
(ii) In order to realise the maximum value of the immovable asset of the Company,
the premises/property in the building of NBCC, it is the recommendation of the
committee that the same be sold by the auction by the Hon’ble Company Court. The
company has estimated its value around Rs. 4,100 lacs, whereas the creditors are
of the view that its value will not be less than Rs 8,000 lacs. It has been noticed that
the disputes are pending between NBCC and the Petitioner Company with regard to
the said property which is’ pending adjudication before Shri S.K. Kaul, Sole Arbitrator
appointed by NBCC in terms of Agreement dated 9th Dec, 1995 and is now fixed
for final arguments. The claim of NBCC is for an amount of Rs.288 Lacs. It is also
noticed that such other and several disputes are pending with regard to this NBCC
property, which make it unfeasible for anyone to sell it easily or to get a realistic
value of the property on the basis of valuation report and then to decide on such
valuation as to how much total amount is to be paid to the creditors. Valuation of
such a property will also be more of distress sale value and will not be realistic. In
the circumstances an efficacious way will be to pay a part of the amount from the
liquid assets available with the company and in the meantime also to sell the fixed
assets of the Company by auction by the Hon’ble Company Court. This will result
in a part payment to all the genuine creditors and to realize the actual value of the
immoveable assets of the Company. This will also facilitate the Hon’ble Company
Court to determine whether some interest should be paid to the creditors considering
all the other factors including that the endeavor is not to wind up the Company but to
revive the Company if sufficient surplus is available with the Company after selling
all its immoveable assets. Therefore, it is recommended” that the” immovable and
fixed assets of the company be sold by auction by Hon’ble Company Court in the
manner adopting the modalities which are followed while selling the fixed assets and
the immovable properties of the companies which are under liquidation with the help
from Official Liquidator or a Consultant, though the sale of the properties is not for
the purpose of winding up the Petitioner Company.
Phase 2
In the second phase, which should also commence. with phase 1 simultaneously, properties
and shares and all the assets be liquidated by selling and the realized amount is recommended
to be utilized for the repayment of balance 30% of principal and the maturity value on the fixed
deposits, debentures and banks. If the amount is still available to the Company, the Hon’ble
Company Court may decide whether some amount - be paid as interest as has also been
recommended by the Reserve Bank of India. Certain steps of the Phase 2 which can commence
with phase 1 i.e. sale of the properties of the Company by the Hon’ble Company Court and/or
such steps which will be required to sell the assets of the Company in order to realize the value
of the assets to meet the liabilities of the fixed deposits and debentures creditors.
Hon’ble Bombay High Court. No claim has however, been filed by the Central Bank of India before
the Committee despite opportunity granted to the Bank. While computing the amount payable in
phases to other creditors, this amount claimed by the Bank will be not disbursed till the bank is able
to establish its claim in the appropriate proceedings before the Court.
Payments to debenture holders are being made as per the recommendation of One-Man Committee
from the Financial Year 2017-18 to 2023-24. Refer note 15.2 for details regarding repayments made
to debenture holders.
PUNJAB & SIND BANK (PSB)
Background
The Punjab and Sind Bank had filed recovery proceedings in the year 2000 before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal for Rs. 1,217 Lacs comprising of Rs.850 lacs as ledger balance and Rs.376 lacs as Memo
Interest. In the year 2000. Company in order to redress the repayment issues, propounded a scheme
and in the scheme of rearrangement with its creditors proposed to pay Rs 951 lacs to the Bank
and the Bank voted in favor of scheme and the suit in DRT has been stayed by the High Court and
the Bank agreed to receive Rs. 951 lacs. This amount was agreed after protracted discussions /
negotiations with PSB, and it has been agreed that amount payable as on Sept, 1997 will be taken as
principal and interest from Sept 1997 to March, 2000 will be added @ 10% quarterly compounded.
Thus, the amount payable became Rs 951 lacs. It was admitted and justified by the said bank that
this settlement was as per RBI guidelines. Reliance for this can be placed on an internal note dated
12th Sept, 2000 of the bank and a letter dated 20th Oct, 2000 from the counsel of PSB. As per
terms of settlement Rs 50.00 Lacs were paid to PSB in the year 2000. Though the part payment has
been made to the Bank pursuant to settlement and scheme, however, due to modifications made
in scheme for, PSB by Company in the creditors meeting. The scheme was, will be paid in 6 equal
yearly installments of one year after the approval of the said scheme or 1st April, 2006 which ever
will be earlier and balance 40% by equity shares at any time within three years of the effective date
or 1.4.2006. The shares were to be allotted on preferential allotment basis as per the rate approved
by SEBI under its guidelines. The sale price of the share was protected to the extent of Rs.375 lacs
by issuing fresh additional equity, if required. The bank was paid Rs. 90 lacs in the year 2005-06, but
further amount could not be paid on account of order dated 6th March, 2006 “of the Hon’ble Court.
The Bank received the amounts partly under the settlement and could not withdraw from the scheme
without refunding the amounts received by it, yet in 2012 it filed an application for intervention /
objection to the scheme which has not been allowed. In the circumstances the amount payable to the
bank has been taken as settled with the Bank and 70% of the. said amount be paid forthwith in the first
phase and balance in the second phase which is substantially better as earlier only Rs.60 lakhs was
payable in six years and equity shares were to be issued for the balance amount. Under the previous
proposal which has been accepted by the Bank, the amount was payable in installments and part of
the amount by converting the amount in’ equity shares whereas under present recommendation 70%
of the amount is payable forthwith and balance’ amount in second phase after liquefying all the assets
of the Company which will be probably within two years.
In the scheme, the amount payable to Punjab & Sind Bank has been quantified at Rs. 901.80 lacs
as on 30th June 2004. This figure has been arrived at after compounding the interest payable on the
principal amount due as on 30th September 1997, at the rate of 10% compounded quarterly till 31st
March 2000, after allowing credit for actual amount paid till date. (Present Value of amount payable
after all adjustments the payable amount is Rs 803.4 lacs) The settlement made with the Bank in
the scheme earlier has been considered as the base. Accordingly, keeping in line with the above
settlement and OTS guidelines of RBI, the following payments is recommended to be made to PSB:
INDUSIND BANK
In the scheme, the total principal amount payable to IndusInd Bank has been quantified at Rs 651.50
Lacs as on 30th June 2004. This figure has been arrived at after calculating interest upto31st March 2000
@12% p.a. compounded quarterly on the principal amount of L/C devolvement, after allowing credits for
actual amounts paid till date and credit for margin money amounting to Rs. 35.99 Lacs, and excludes
penal interest/ additional interest/ overdue charges, if any, debited by the’ Bank. (Present outstanding
after all adjustments is Rs 577.00 lakhs) The settlement made with the Bank in the earlier scheme has
been considered as the base. The total amount payable under the scheme to IndusInd Bank so quantified
shall be repaid in line with the above settlement and RBI guidelines of OTS is as under:
28) Contingent Liabilities and Commitments
A) Contingent Liabilities
(a) During the year ended 30th June, 2011 the company’s tenant had filed a claim of Rs.
100.00 Lacs against the company due to damages suffered by the tenant which is still
pending under arbitration proceedings as on 31st March, 2024.
(b) There is an award passed by the High Court vide its judgment dated April 27, 2022 against
the company in the matter of MS Shoes East Limited for Rs. 12.82 Lacs i.e. the claim
amount, along with interest of Rs. 8.97 Lacs for an underwriting given by the company in
the year 1995 for the public issue of M/s MS Shoes East Ltd
(c) Due to dispute with the builder namely M/s NBCC Ltd. from which the company had
purchased an office premises in the year 1995, regarding a claim of Rs. 288.29 Lacs on
account of increase in super area and certain other expenditure which the builder i.e. M/s
NBCC Ltd. had incurred and the same is pending in arbitration. Breakup of the amount of
Rs. 288.29 lacs mentioned supra is as follows:
In addition to the above, Interest @ 10% is payable by both the parties on their respective
amounts.
That whereas NBCC has filed objections to the award in Delhi High Court in December
2020 and the same appears to be lying in objections.
That DCM has also filed objection in Delhi High Court and the same has not being listed
so far.
Company Management is hopeful that there will not be any extra claims in view of Award
declared by Arbitrator.
B) Commitments
There are no non-cancelable capital commitments.
29) Defined Benefit Plans/Long Term Compensated Absences:-
Description of Plans
The Company makes contributions to Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans for
qualifying employees. Gratuity Benefits and Leave Encashment Benefits are unfunded in
nature. The Defined Benefit Plans are based on employees’ length of service.
The liabilities arising in the Defined Benefit Schemes are determined in accordance with the
advice of independent, professionally qualified actuaries, using the projected unit credit method
at the year end. The Company makes regular contributions to these Employee Benefit Plans.
The net Defined benefit cost is recognized by the companies in Financial Statements.
The following table summarize the components of net benefit expenses recognized in the
statement of Profit & loss and the funded status and the amount recognized in Balance Sheet
1 irinrt OnOT OA
30) For year ended 31 March, 2024 and 31 March 2023, Company has no dues from any party
covered under the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED).
31) The Company has brought forward unabsorbed depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961
but it is unlikely to have taxable income in the foreseeable future. Deferred tax assets in situation
where carry forward unabsorbed depreciation/business loss exists, are not recognized to the
extent that it is no longer probable that sufficient taxable profits will be available to allow all or
part of the asset to be recovered, accordingly Deferred Tax Assets on Unabsorbed Depreciation
Losses are not recognized in accordance with Ind AS 12 “Income Taxes”.
32) Deposit of Rs 1,950.00 lacs by DCM Services Limited
DCM Services Ltd, as a promoter had committed to bring in Rs 1,950.00 lacs as a promoter
contribution upon sanction of their restructuring scheme under erstwhile Section 391 of the
Indian Companies Act, 1956 which is under implementation by One Man Committee appointed
with the direction of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The Court vide order dated 06.05.2008 has asked DCM Services Limited to deposit Rs.
1,950.00 lacs with the Court and pursuant to the court order. DCM Services Limited deposited
Rs 500 Lacs on 16.07.2010, Rs 670 lacs on 18.11.2010, Rs. 390 lacs on 21.04.2011 & Rs.
390 lacs on 27.04.2012 aggregating to Rs. 1,950.00 lacs on behalf of the promoters with the
Registrar, Hon’ble Delhi High Court. All the funds are with Delhi High Court along-with accrued
interest thereon. No financial impact of this has been recorded in the financials of the company
till the period ended 31st March, 2024 as there is no clarity provided by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on whether Company would have to issue any shares against such contribution as per
SEBI guidelines or such amount would be refundable to DCM Services Limited or there would
be no liability on the Company to pay or issue any shares. Till Company gets any clarity on this
matter, no financial entry has been recorded in the books of accounts.
The Company determines the fair value of its financial instruments on the basis of the following
hierarchy:
Level 1: The fair value of financial instruments that are quoted in active markets are determined on
the basis of quoted price for identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2: The fair value of financial instruments that are not traded in an active market are determined
on the basis of net asset value as per last available audited financial statements.
Level 3: If one or more of the significant inputs is not based on observable market data, the fair value
is determined using discounted cash flow method with the most significant inputs being the discount
rate that reflects the credit risk of the counter-party.
35) Capital Management
The Company’s objective for managing capital is to ensure as under:
a) To ensure the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
b) Maintaining a strong credit rating and healthy debt equity ratio in order to support business
and maximize the shareholders’ value.
c) Maintain an optimal capital structure.
d) Compliance financial covenants under the borrowing facilities
For the purpose of capital management, capital includes issued equity capital, and all other
equity reserves attributable to the equity holders of the Company.
The Company manages its capital structure keeping in view of:
a) Compliance of financial covenants of borrowing facilities.
b) Changes in economic conditions.
In order to achieve this overall objective of capital management, amongst other things, the
Company aims to ensure that it meets financial covenants as decided by One Man Committee
and Delhi High Court. One Man Committee has given few recommendations for payments
to its creditors which has been accepted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
There has been no breach in the financial covenants of any borrowing facilities in the current
period. There is no change in the objectives, policies or processes for managing capital over
previous year.
36) Going Concern Basis
The company filed a fresh Scheme of Arrangement for the reorganization of the share capital
of the company and for compromise with the secured and unsecured creditors of the company,
hereinafter referred to as the “Fresh Restructuring Scheme” before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
at New Delhi on 24th September 2004.
Pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the unsecured creditors and debenture
holders in their meeting convened under the Chairpersonship of court appointed Chairpersons
(retired Judges of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) on IstApril 2005 and 2nd April, 2005 have
approved the scheme without any modifications with the requisite majority. The meeting of the
other secured creditors (banks/ institutions) was held on 17thSeptember 2005 and has also
approved the scheme by the requisite majority after considering some modifications proposed
by the Punjab & Sind Bank. The promoter company has undertaken, subject to sanction of the
scheme by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, contributed Rs. 1,950.00 lacs of which Rs. 1,560.00
lacs were deposited with the Registrar of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Registrar, as per court
order by the promoter group, and the balance amount of Rs 390 Lacs had been deposited
on 27th April, 2012. The Fresh Restructuring Scheme kept pending for approval of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi. Over the years and till 31st March, 2017, the accounts of the company
have been drawn on the assumption that the “fresh restructuring scheme” will be accepted and
implemented. If it is not accepted and cannot be implemented for any reason the total liability
before the proposed restructuring scheme including those for which no provision has been
made and has been quantified under appropriate heads, shall become payable.
Justice Anil Kumar as one-man committee was appointed vide order dated: - 3rd September,
2015 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to scrutinize the list of depositors and other claimants
and to take steps enumerated hereinafter with the view to resolve at-least some of the disputes.
The one-man committee submitted its report on to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 22nd April,
2016. Taking cognizance of the report, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 10th August, 2017
accepted the recommendation of one-man committee enumerated in the report. One Man
Committee observed that that it already has sufficient funds, ready cash, to repay about 70% of
the deposits to all the depositors having deposits of more than Rs 0.05 lacs including secured
creditors in the first stage. Under Phase -1, 70% a part of the amount be paid to the creditors
having deposits of more than Rs. 0.05 lacs and full amount be paid to those who have deposits
of Rs. or less than Rs.0.05 lacs in the first instance. In the second phase, which should also
commence. with phase 1 simultaneously, properties and shares and all the assets be liquidated
by selling and the realized amount is recommended to be utilized for the repayment of balance
30% of principal and the maturity value on the fixed deposits, debentures and banks. If the
amount is still available to the Company, the Hon’ble Company Court may decide whether some
amount - be paid as interest as has also been recommended by the Reserve Bank of India.
During the year ended 31st March, 2018, Company started paying the amount as per Phase-I
and Phase-I and is still in continuation for the financial year ending 31st March 2024. However,
company has simultaneously started making payment under phase- II of balance 30% to those
who have claimed the same. During the year 2023-24 company has started making payment of
100% to those creditors who are claiming it. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the issue of
revival of the company will be decided once all payments are made in the manner as suggested
in the report. The accounts of the company have been prepared on a “going concern” basis on
an assumption & premises made by the management that: -
(a) Company earned a net loss of Rs. 93.29 lacs during the year ended March 31,2024 and,
as of that date, the Company’s current liabilities exceeded its total assets by Rs 4,609.98
lacs. The accumulated loss as on 31st March, 2024 stands to Rs. 9,116.70 lacs - (Previous
year Rs. 9,023.41 lacs/-). As on 31st March, 2024, the Company’s total liabilities exceeded
to its total assets by Rs. 4,894.48 lacs (Previous year Rs. 4,801.20 lacs).
(b) The Company is not carrying on any business as to comply with the directives of the
Reserve Bank of India the company ceased to accept deposits from September 1997 and
the company’s application to RBI for certificate of registration (COR) as a NBFC had been
rejected by the RBI in year 2004. The Company contends that the Scheme of One-Man
Committee shall be implemented in full and other aspect of fresh restructuring scheme
such issuance of equity to SBI HOME FINANCE LTD and Pressman Leasing would be
approved/decided upon by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and accordingly the decision on
revival of Company would be taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and
(c) Adequate finances and opportunities would be available in the foreseeable future to
enable the company to start operating on a profitable basis
37) The Company’s application to RBI for Certificate of Registration (COR) as a NBFC had been
rejected by the RBI in year 2004. The company had made an appeal to the Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Finance which directed the RBI to keep its order of rejection of COR in abeyance
for a period of six months and directed the company to file Fresh Restructuring Scheme before
Hon’ble Delhi High Court. RBI has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
against the order of the appellate authority, which is still pending. This may be decided upon
once scheme of One-Man Committee shall be implemented in full and other aspect of fresh
restructuring scheme would be approved/decided upon by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
38) Balance confirmation of security deposits provided, trade receivables, some bank balances,
FD balances with bank, rent receivables, other advances, borrowings, balances payable to
related parties and other receivables and payables have not been received from the parties/
persons concerned. In the absence of balance confirmations, the closing balances as per
books of accounts have been incorporated in the financial statements and have been shown,
unless otherwise stated by the management about its recoverability in the financials including
considering the NPA Provisions, are good for recovery/payment. Time barred debts under
the Limitations Act have not been separately ascertained and written off or provided for. In
the absence of such confirmation & corresponding reconciliation, it is not feasible for the
management to determine financial impact on the financial statements and the amount referred
as payable/receivables in the financials can differ.
39) Segment information for the year ended 31st March 2024.
The Company is engaged in a single segment i.e. Financing Operations viz., inter corporate deposits
and investments. Presently Company is not carrying on any operation except realizing all debts
or maintaining existing assets. The operating results are regularly reviewed and performance is
assessed by its Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM). All the company’s resources are dedicated
to this single segment and all the discrete financial information is available for this segment.
‘Return on Equity (ROE) has not been disclosed as both the numerator and denominator are nega¬
tive figures in the current financial year.
41) Figures for the previous year have been re-grouped/re-classified wherever necessary to make
them comparable with the figures of the current year.
42) Presentation of Figures
The financial statements are presented in Indian Rupees (INR) which is also the Company’s
functional currency and all values are rounded to the nearest lakhs, except when otherwise
indicated
For V Sahai Tripathi & Co.
Chartered Accountants
Firm Registration No. 000262N
Vishwas Tripathi Nidhi Deveshwar Richa Kalra Somali Tiwari
Partner Whole Time Director Director Company Secretary
Membership No. 086897 DIN: 09505480 DIN: 07632571 M.No. A-47631
Place : Delhi
Dated : 28th May, 2024
|