Sunset Pvt. Ltd., a private company incorporated in 2016, was engaged in large-scale construction projects. In April 2024, the company faced a…

Sunset Pvt. Ltd., a private company incorporated in 2016, was engaged in large-scale construction projects. In April 2024, the company faced a severe cash crunch. The board decided to raise funds urgently. On 20th April 2024, one of the directors, Mr. Ramesh, advanced 25 lakh to the company. He orally stated that the money came from his personal account but did not provide any written declaration. On 25th April 2024, the company also circulated a notice inviting deposits from the public promising 11% interest. Within 15 days, 80 lakh was collected from the public. The company did not appoint any trustees, did not deposit 20% of maturing deposits into a Deposit Repayment Reserve Account, nor did it purchase deposit insurance. In June 2024, Sunset Pvt. Ltd. borrowed 2 crore from Horizon Bank against the creation of a mortgage on its plant and machinery. However, the company never filed particulars of the charge with the Registrar of Companies. In March, 2025, default occurred both in repayments of deposits and in repayment of the bank loan. Subsequently, winding-up proceedings were initiated. During liquidation, depositors filed claims before the Tribunal for repayment of deposit amount along with interest. Horizon Bank also sought to enforce its security. Meanwhile, the company had fixed its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 30th September 2024. The notice was issued to all members on 10th September. On the scheduled date of AGM, only one shareholder attended within half an hour of the meeting time. The chairperson adjourned the meeting to 7th October 2024. On the adjourned date, again only one shareholder was present, but resolutions regarding approval of accounts and reappointment of a director were passed. Another member later challenged the validity of those resolutions. In parallel, a group of minority shareholders alleged that the invitation for deposits was a disguised attempt by the directors to avoid stricter conditions of raising secured loans, and that the company deliberately failed to comply with deposit-related provisions. They filed a complaint seeking disqualification of directors for contravention of statutory requirements. The Tribunal was also approached to