2022 (3) TMI 366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....others and disputes arose between them out of the business activities in relation to an oil company. The 3rd petitioner - A3 was the Company Secretary. The 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that the complainant was the founder director of M/s.BRS Refineries Pvt. Ltd. The company was having share capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. 10,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each. The petitioners No.1 and 2 - A1 and A2 along with the complainant were running a company under the name and style of M/s.Sarda Agro Oils Ltd., and obtained a loan of Rs. 143.00 crores from Allahabad Bank, Himayatnagar branch, Hyderabad and Bank of Baroda, Himayatnagar branch, Hyderabad. The complainant and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king any permission or direction from the complainant and his wife. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant and his wife enquired with A3 vide email dated 16-1-2013 and A3 gave a reply mail on 17-1-2013 that the same was done under the instructions of A1. 2.3. The said complaint was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The same was registered as Crime 335 of 2013 by Sultan Bazaar Police and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners - A1 to A3 under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by law after amendment to the Companies Act, 2013 and the complainant had to approach the Registrar of Companies or the Regional Director of Ministry of Corporate Affairs but could not lodge the complaint before the Court, it is to be noted that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the alleged offence was committed on 31.10.2012 prior to the amendment of the Companies Act in the year 2013 and the provisions of Section 241 to 246 of Companies Act, 2013 had no prima facie application to the alleged offences as the said provisions were limited to prevention of oppression and mismanagement which were applicable when the business of the company was managed in a manner which was likely to cause serious injury o....