TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... she had left India on 16/09/06 and come back on 03/10/06, this aspect definitely needs to be enquired into. However, before any final decision is taken by this Court for exercising the powers under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. for making a complaint to the Magistrate, this Court deems it fit to hold a preliminary enquiry for looking into the claim of the petitioner that she was not in India during the period from 16/09/06 to 03/10/06 and for that reason she could not have been present in the AGM of the Company which respondents 2 and 3 herein had allegedly held on 30/09/06 and so the minutes of 30/09/06 are fabricated. I, therefore, direct the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to hold a preliminary enquiry into the said aspect relating to the genuineness of the minutes of the AGM held on 30/09/06 and for that purpose he would be at liberty to take any steps including inspection of the record of this petition as well as that of the Company Law Board and the Company. The report would be submitted to this Court within six weeks." 3. The inquiry report of the Registrar Vigilance is indicated to have been received as observed vide order dated 2.7.2010. 4. Vide order dated 16.8.2010 it wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has no bearing on this matter and at best, if that stay order is to be taken into consideration, that would amount to 'that all acts done pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2010 may not be taken into consideration while disposing of the petition'. It is also contended that the respondents did not even inform the Supreme Court that the Registrar (Vigilance), pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2010 had already submitted his inquiry report in this Court and that the petitioner is not claiming any action for the offences mentioned in Section 195(a)(i) or 195(b)(ii) of the Code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the stay order, no further proceedings can be carried out in this matter till the stay is vacated or some clarificatory order is given by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the attendance recorded in the order of stay, petitioner was represented in the Supreme Court and also that it would not be appropriate to have two parallel inquiries into the allegations made in the petition; one suo moto inquiry by this Court and other by the Registrar (Vigilance). I have considered the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osla Group suggested for an early decision of the Company Petition before the CLB as a better alternative so that at least main dispute between the parties is adjudicated upon at an early date. He was candid in his submission that the issues which are subject matter of these two Special Leave Petitions and arise out of the proceedings in the High Court, have their origin in the orders dated 31.1.2008, which is an interim order passed by the CLB. He thus, pointed out that once the Company Petition itself is decided, the issues involved therein namely whether Board meeting dated 14.12.2007 was illegal or whether Board meeting dated 30.9.2006 was barred in law would also get decided. In the process the CLB would also be in a position to decide as to whether minutes of AGM of the Company allegedly held on 30.9.2006 are forged or not and on that basis application under Section 340 Cr.PC which is filed before the Company Law Boared would also be taken care of by the CLB itself. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Bakshi Group immediately agreed with the aforesaid course of action suggested by Mr. Cama. We are happy that at least there is an agreement between both the parties on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roach the CLB for appropriate directions. 24. Both these petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All other pending I.As including criminal contempt petitions and petitions filed under Section 340 Cr. PC are also disposed of as in the facts of this case, we are not inclined to entertain such application. No costs." 7. Vide the judgment dated 3.12.2018, CA No. 1089/2018 filed in the present petition Crl.M.(Co.) 3/2008 was disposed of observing to the effect vide paragraphs 3 to 18 thereof to the effect: "13. A perusal of the order of the Supreme Court dated 08.05.2014 would show that the Supreme Court has specifically directed that the High Court need not proceed further with the present Crl.M (CO.) 3/2008. (emphasis supplied) 14. By the present application, the petitioner herein has submitted that further proceedings in the main petition have been transferred to the Company Law Board/NCLT in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 8.5.2014 in SLP (Crl.) No.6873/2010 titled as Vikram Bakshi & Ors. vs. Sonia Khosla (Dead) By LRs. Yet he submits that this court would continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt arising out of orders passed by this cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed." (emphasis supplied) 8. Vide order dated 3.11.2020 in the present petition it was observed to the effect: "Crl. M. (Co.) 3/2008 Present petition was transferred to this Court by the Bench of Hon 'ble Mr. Justice C. IIari Shankar on a statement made by Mr.Deepak Khosla that the present petition was connected to CrI.M.(Co.) 4/2019, pending before this Court. CrI.M.(Co.) 4/2019 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 13.08.2020 and a Review Petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court. While disposing of the said petition, it was mentioned in para 18 that CrI.M.(Co.) 3/2008 had been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 03.12.2018. Para 18 of the judgment dated 13.08.2020 has been modified by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2020 observing that the CrI.M.(Co.) 3/2008 is pending. In view of the above, the present petition need not be listed before this Court. During the arguments, Mr. Deepak Khosla had submitted that a connected matter being Crl. M.C. No. 3021/2019 is listed before Hon'ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra and prayed that the present petition be listed before the same Bench. List before the Appropriate Bench, subject to order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 577/2020, Co.Appl. No. 602/2020 and Co.Appl. No. 625/2020 that are germane presently. 11. The matter was taken up on an application bearing Co. Appln. No. 456/2021 filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC seeking liberty to place on record a copy of the order dated 5.5.2021 in Crl.M.(Co.) 4/2019 on the judicial record to submit to the effect that thereby it had been held that the order dated 8.5.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was no longer in force in view of the factum that the Co. Petition No. 114/2007 had been dismissed as withdrawn by the NCLT. 12. In as much as, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of the advance notice of that application, it was considered appropriate that the documents sought to be placed on record with Co.Appln. No. 456/2021 were allowed to be placed on record and as prayed on behalf of the petitioner, a fresh hearing in the matter was granted and the matter was thus re-notified for consideration for the date 22.9.2021. 13. On 22.9.2021, submissions were made on behalf of either side in view of the fresh opportunity having been granted to either side to make submissions vide order d....