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 upholds summoning order in Companies Act complaint, Modi Family dispute. Prima facie case established.</h1> <h3>Dr. Devendra Kumar Modi Versus State of U.P. and Another</h3> Dr. Devendra Kumar Modi Versus State of U.P. and Another - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves the quashing of a summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013.Summary:The applicant filed an application to quash the summoning order and consequential proceedings related to a complaint under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013. The complaint alleged illegal possession of an Office cum-guest house since 1987. The dispute arose from a split within the Modi Family, leading to division of business shares/assets/properties between Group A and Group B. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 1989 detailed the division, stating that possession of properties was the relevant consideration, not ownership or tenancy. The applicant argued that the summoning order was mechanical and failed to consider civil cases pending in Civil Court regarding the MoU interpretation. The applicant contended that the opposite party was not the owner of the premises and the prosecution was malicious.On the other hand, the complainant argued that the applicant was appointed as President of the Company and the company leased land for construction of an Office cum Guest House. The complainant asserted that the impugned order was passed after considering all facts and should not be scuttled at the summoning stage. The court found that at this stage, a prima facie case existed, and disputed facts should be addressed during trial. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the decision that disputed defenses of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order was refused, and the application was dismissed.
TaxTMI 