TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses petition against company director for forgery under Sick Industrial Companies Act; individual liable under IPC</h1> <h3>VN. Sunanda Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh</h3> VN. Sunanda Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh - [2006] 66 SCL 358 (AP) Issues:Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to stop police investigation, claiming lack of jurisdiction. Whether the police have the authority to investigate a criminal complaint against the petitioner under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.Analysis:The petitioner, a managing director of a sick industrial company, faces a criminal complaint of forgery and fabrication by a shareholder. The petitioner argues that the police investigation is illegal due to the special provisions of the Act. The Act establishes a Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to handle sick companies. It suspends civil proceedings during its inquiry and provides penalties for mismanagement. However, the Act does not shield individuals from criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code.The respondent claims the complaint is unrelated to a civil suit by another party and accuses the petitioner of forgery and breach of trust. The Act protects the company and management during scheme implementation but does not bar criminal proceedings. The court notes that the Act does not protect individuals from criminal liability. The petitioner's alleged actions fall under criminal law, warranting police investigation.The court cites a Supreme Court case stating that the Act does not impede criminal prosecutions. The Act's focus is on sick companies, not individual criminal actions. The complaint against the petitioner involves forgery and cheating, falling under criminal law jurisdiction. The court finds no basis to halt the police investigation, as the Act does not shield individuals from criminal offenses.In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petition, stating the petitioner is not entitled to relief under the Act for criminal acts. The Act's provisions are limited to company proceedings, not individual criminal liabilities. The police investigation into the petitioner's alleged offenses is justified under criminal law, and the writ petition lacks merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
