TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and order dated 11/01/2021 (taking cognizance and issuing process) and be further pleased to quash all further proceedings thereto, in the interest of justice; or pass any Order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1956") having its registered office at Bhopal and respondents are Union of India and the functionaries under the Ministry of Cooperate Affairs. 3. A complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2/3 with the allegations that between the period 30-11-2000 to 25-07-2006 Alliance Industries Ltd. (a foreign entity) has made investment of Rs. 144.18 crores by way of purchase of share at premium (out of which, share capital amount is Rs. 14.66 crores and premium amount is Rs. 129.52 crores). Company has given loans to the related parties namely PGH International Pvt. Ltd. and Sarvjanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas (SJPN) at the terms which as per the allegations are not in the interest of shareholders of the company. 4. It is further alleged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no authorization has been given to the present complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies to file complaint, therefore, same is vitiated by the effect of Section 212(6) of the Act of 2013. He referred various provisions of Act of 2013 to augment his arguments. 9. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of Telangana High Court in the case of Sumana Paruchuri Vs. Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy, MANU/TL/0928/2022 and Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Sri M Gopal Vs. Sri Ganga Reddy in Crl.P. No. 3550/2017 and Ashish Bhalla Vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5818. 10. Another ground raised by learned senior counsel is that the offence comes within the ambit of Companies Act, 1956, therefore, offence as alleged is not cognizable under the Act of 2013. Thus, offence under Section 447 of the Act of 2013 cannot be treated having as ex post facto application of penal provision and placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 315, T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177, Swetab Kumar Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 339. According to him, initial com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner on merit also. According to him, inspection of books and accounts of the company carried out by the Central Government under Section 206(5) of the Act of 2013 indicates that company has given wrongful gains to the other related party (SJPN) and it includes management of the company and thus caused wrongful loss to the shareholders/company which tantamounts to fraud. Once the amount in the present manner has been transferred from one entity to another, therefore, it appears to be violative of Section 447 of the Act of 2013. Since it was recurring cause of action and report was obtained in 2019-2020, therefore fraud came to the knowledge of respondent in post 2013 period, therefore, case is to be tried under the provisions of the Act of 2013. No case for interference is made out. He prayed for dismissal of petition. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 18. This is a case where petitioner has taken exception to the proceedings bearing complaint No. SC/12/2021 under Section 447 of the Act of 2013 in which cognizance has been taken and process has been issued vide order dated 11-01-2021. 19. So far as arguments of petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05-09-2018, Mr. Khosla again wrote to the Cooperate Affairs levelling the allegations of fraudulent inducement to invest money and thereafter misappropriation/conversion of funds by the petitioner company. From the said narration coupled with the fact that 100% funds from the net worth of the company were transferred as on 31-03- 2018 which is post 2013 phenomenon. 22. Therefore, commission of offence was a recurring cause of action and continuous process travelled in pre and post era of the Act of 2013. Thus, it is not a case where offence has been committed in earlier Act of 1956 and application of penal provision of present Act namely the Companies Act, 2013 was applied. Therefore, on this count also, arguments as advanced by counsel for the petitioner pales into oblivion and the judgments relied upon by the petitioner move in different factual realm. The facts as delineated and discussed in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) are different and not applicable in the present set of facts. It was in respect of scope of CBI enquiry. Jurisdiction of the Bench, inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and doctrine of Waiver and Judicial Bias etc. Facts of that case an....