TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent 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 during 2011 to 2013 and the possession of the flat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 the holding company of Amrapali Group of companies M/s Ultra Home ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 following judgments in support of the contentions:- (a) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 period of 36 months along with an additional grace period of 6 months since 2014 to 2016. It is important to keep in perspective as to the reasons for the non-construc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 petitioner received funds from Amrapali Group of Companies, which were used for acquiring personal properties. 9. The principles for grant of bail as referred in the judgme....