TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief, as per the case of prosecution, the present case was registered against M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. on the joint complaint of Sh. Chandra Kant Singh and seven other victims/home buyers who had booked their housing units in group housing projects. During investigation, more than 450 victims filed complaints, who had also booked their housing units in the group housing projects M/s Amrapali Dream Valley-I and M/s Amrapali Dream Valley-II alleging similar nature of grievances. The aforesaid projects were proposed to be developed at Plot No. GH-09, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 3. It is further the case of prosecution that the allotment-cum-Flat Buyer Agreements were executed in favour of home buyers durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be completed. The petitioner alongwioth Anil Kumar Sharma and Shiv Priya are stated to be the directors of M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant period and were also the authorised signatory in bank account of the company. The documents of the company were further seized by the forensic auditor vide order dated 10.10.2018 in writ petition no.940/2017 filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses the application for bail on following grounds:- (i) That the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.04.2019 and the matter is still pending at the stage of arguments on charge, owing to COVID19 pandemic. (ii) That the petitioner is one of the directors of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial number of FIRs, the petitioner has been granted bail/anticipatory bail. It is urged that each case needs to be seen in the light of the construction undertaken in the respective projects. (v) The petitioner is stated to have been made authorized signatory along with others in Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the board resolution of the company with a mandate to act in terms of the instructions given and had no role to play beyond the authorization and limits. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not a Director in Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. when the complainant booked his flat and was a Director merely for the period from 05.07.2013 to 20.12.2016. (vi) Reliance is also placed upon the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to have been transferred by the company to multiple personal accounts as well as for acquisition of other properties, contrary to the mandate of law. The buyers were induced by attractive advertisements for investment in the projects without any intention to deliver the flats. Reference is also made to part of the forensic audit report dated 25.03.2019. Reliance is also placed upon State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Others (1987) 2 SCC 364 and Nimagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466. 8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record. At the outset, it may be observed that more than 450 victims await for the possession of the housing units, which were agreed to be delivered within a per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present company as well as in the subsidiary companies in which the funds were siphoned off by way of short term loans and advances. The petitioner in the light of the evidence on record cannot claim that he was unaware of the transactions and was not responsible for the affairs of the company at the relevant time and, as such, it does not appear to be a case of vicarious liability, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned APP for the State has also pointed out that though only a part of the forensic audit has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner to claim that the petitioner was responsible for only construction and coordination but it has been concealed that the forensic audit states that the petitio....