2013 (1) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) dated 16.11.2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner (CA No. 523/2012) seeking a dismissal of the petition filed by Naveen Gupta with an additional prayer to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.PC against him had been dismissed. 5. Record shows that a petition under Section 397 read with Section 398 of the Companies Act had been filed by the petitioner Naveen Gupta before the CLB. After reply had been filed, rejoinder-affidavit had been filed by Naveen Gupta accompanied by an affidavit. Attention has been drawn to the rejoinder as also the affidavits filed along with the rejoinder (pages 384, 386 & 390 of the paper book); submission being that the signatures of N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a had on two earlier occasions signed cheques which were not in consonance with his signatures in the record available with the Bank; submission being that this affidavit has been filed in connivance with Naveen Gupta only to help him in his exoneration. 7. On advance notice, learned counsel for the respondent has put an appearance. Counter submissions have been made. It is pointed out that the background of the case is also relevant; the respondent is not allowing the case to progress in the court below for one reason or the other; hurdles are being created.   8. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that Naveen Gupta had been summoned in the Court and he had owned his signatures on the rejoinder as also the two accompanying....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. 34. Now let us apply the said principles to the facts of the present case. Certainly, Dr. Vimla was guilty of deceit, for though her name was Vimla, she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini and made the insurance company believe that her name was Nalini, but the said deceit did not either secure to her advantage or cause any non-economic loss or injury to the insurance company. The charge does not disclose any such advantage or injury,....