TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional District and Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam ('Trial Court', for brevity). The prosecution has been launched based on a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short, 'Act'). 2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed assailing Annexure A-11 common order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioner to vacate the residential quarters in his occupation forthwith. The petitioner contends that the impugned order travels beyond the scope of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is consequently liable to be set aside. 3. The relevant background facts are as follows: On the application of the accused perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er opposed the application, the Trial Court, by Annexure A-11 common order, has directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters forthwith. Annexure A-11 common order is patently erroneous and unjustifiable. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Before examining the rival contentions, it is apposite to extract the relevant portion of Annexure A-4 common order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 11.03.2026, which reads thus: "2. One of the accused persons (Anthony Das) has filed an undertaking on affidavit which is to be construed as a common affidavit by all the accused. This sample affidavit has been bro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of the quarters in accordance with the undertaking." 8. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has erroneously held that the affidavit filed by Anthony Das is a common undertaking on behalf of all the accused persons. The petitioner had never executed any affidavit undertaking to vacate the quarters nor authorised Anthony Das to furnish such an undertaking on his behalf. Therefore, the operative direction in paragraph 6 of Annexure A-4 common order is not binding on the petitioner, and the Trial Court has committed a serious error by directing the petitioner to vacate the quarters. 9. The above contention may appear attractive at first blush, but this Court is unable to persuade itself to ac....