TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1956, for contravention of Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, against M/s Delhi Cold Storage Private Limited (Accused No. 1) and its principal Officers namely Mr. Sandeep Mittal (Accused No. 2) and Ms. Jignya Mittal (Accused No.3). 3. The facts in brief stated therein are that M/s Delhi Cold Storage Private Limited was a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered Office at 15-16, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. As on 18.03.2002, the authorized capital of the Company was Rs. 30,00,000/- and paid up capital was also Rs. 30,00,000/-. 4. Mr. Ravi Mittal had written Letters dated 16.08.2002 and 27.09.2002, to the ROC that the shares of the Company belonging to him, his wife, his HUF, his children/ including Minor and Mrs. Kum Kum Mittal, mother were deposited with the sole Arbitrator for appropriate action, in accordance with the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 01.10.2000 and said shares scripts and other documents are still in the possession of the Arbitrator. However, they have been transferred in the name of Mr. Sandeep Mittal, his HUF and Ms. Jignya Mittal, for which no entries made in the Registrar of Members. Mr. Ravi Mittal cam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deed and original share scripts as provided under Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. 9. It was further stated in the Complaint that the Resolution dated 22.02.2002 of the Company, was passed in violation of the provisions of Section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is a continuous offence. 10. The Office of Regional Director (NR), Ministry of Company Affairs, Kanpur, recorded sanction, on 20.05.2004. Hence, Complaint dated 24.08.2018 was filed by ROC, under Section 108 read with Section 629A of the Companies Act, 1956. 11. The Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. for contravention of Section 108 of Companies Act, 1956 punishable under Section 629A of the said Act, was directed to be framed by learned ACMM, vide Order dated 24.07.2017. 12. This Order was challenged by way of Revision, wherein Revisional Court, vide Order dated 20.09.2017 set aside that Order and directed to consider the matter and rival contentions as well as written submissions and to pass an Order on Notice afresh. 13. Learned ACMM, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, vide Orders dated 01.12.2017 and 08.12.2017, directed framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....137/2010 titled as Ravi Mittal vs. Kum Kum Mittal and Anr. and Ex.P.152/2011 titled as Sandeep Mittal vs. Kum Kum Mittal and Anr., restrained the Complainant Ravi Mittal from exercising any right, vide Order dated 28.10.2014. 20. Learned ACMM dismissed the CC 657/2004 on 01.12.2015 by observing that dispute was civil in nature and documents relied upon by Ravi Mittal, did not disclose commission of any alleged offence. 21. Against this Order of dismissal dated 01.12.2015, Complainant Ravi Mittal filed Revision bearing CR No.02/16 titled Ravi Mittal vs. Sandeep Mittal and Ors. Learned Sessions Judge, vide Order dated 10.11.2016, upheld the Order of learned ACMM dated 01.12.2015, dismissing the Complaint of Mr. Ravi Mittal. 22. Another case was filed by ROC, on same factual matrix and the letters of Ravi Mittal dated 16.08.2002 and 27.09.2002, filed the present Complaint Case No.589/2004, in which Notice was directed to be framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C., vide the impugned Order. 23. Petitioners have asserted that Learned ACMM could not have passed the Orders dated 01.12.2017 and 08.12.2017 on the settled principle of issue estopple, for which reliance has been placed on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. 29. It is claimed that Complaint filed by Mr. Ravi Mittal before the ROC is malicious. Hence, the Complaint as well as impugned Orders dated 01.12.2017 and 08.12.2017, are liable to be quashed. 30. Respondent No. 2 / ROC in its Counter Affidavit has explained that the Complaint was filed on the basis of Complaints dated 16.08.2002 and 27.09.2002 filed by Mr. Ravi Mittal. The response given by Mrs. Sandeep Mittal, was not found to be satisfactory and thus, the Complaint has been filed. All the averment made in the Petition, are denied. 31. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioners, wherein essentially the same grounds as narrated in the Petition, have been reiterated. Submissions heard and record perused. 32. The uncontroverted facts are that there were family disputes in regard to share holding between Mr. Ravi Mittal and his family members and his brother Mr. Sandeep Mittal and his family members. Admittedly, the matter was referred with the mutual agreement, to Sh. V. K. Modi, to whom all the share scripts and other documents had been handed over. Admittedly, there was a Family Settlement dated 01.10.2000 and Implementation Agreement date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven against the complainant in previous matter upon a full consideration of his case. Further, second complaint on the same facts could be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the matter, therefore, should have been remitted back to the learned Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether any case for cognizance of the alleged offence had been made out or not." [Emphasis supplied] 38. In Manipur Admn. v. Thokchom Bira Singh, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 39, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India held, thus: "12. As we have pointed out, we are not now concerned with any extension of the principle of autre fois acquit but as to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent court at a previous trial. The reasoning of Lord MacDermott in Sambasiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by the Crown against the same prisoner. The allegation of the Crown in the subsequent proceeding must itself be inconsistent with the acquittal of the prisoner in the previous proceeding. But if such a condition of affairs arises I see no reason why the ordinary rules of issue estoppel should not apply. Such rules are not to be confused with those of res judicata, which in criminal proceedings are expressed in the pleas of autre fois acquit and autre fois convict. They are pleas which are concerned with the judicial determination of an alleged criminal liability and in the case of conviction with the substitution of new liability. Issue estoppel is concerned with the judicial establishment of a proposition of law or fact between parties. It depends upon well-known doctrines which control the relitigation of issues which are settled by prior litigation." This decision was rendered in 1948. The matter was the subject of consideration by the High Court of Australia after the decision in Sambasivam case [1950 AC 458] in Mraz v. Queen [96 CLR 62 at pp 68-69]. The question concerned the v....