Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2024 - GAUHATI HIGH COURTCompletion and commissioning of the project including commissioning of the 3(three) Power Generating Units - It is the contention of the petitioners that since the project was commissioned in July, 1996, the defect liability period for M/s SPML in the project expired after 18(eighteen) months i.e., in January, 1998 as per terms of the contract and after expiry of the said defect liability period. i.e., the warranty period - HELD THAT:- In the instant petition, it is noticed that the charge-sheet is submitted against the accused persons namely, 1. Sri S. K. Sethi, Managing Director, M/s SPML, Kolkata 2. Sri Anil Sethi, Director, M/s SPML, Kokata, 3. Sri Pulok Deb, the then Chief Engineer(Power), Itanagar, 4. Sri Tomi Ete, the then Superintending Engineer (Civil), Itanagar, 5. Sri K. Kumaravel, Director of M/s Beacon Neyrpic, Chennai, 6. Sri S. R. Krishnan, Director of M/s Kartik Steels, Chennai and 7. Dr. J.D. Sharma, Director AHEC, Roorke, Uttaranchal. The aforesaid list of the accused persons mentioned in the charge-sheet shows that not only the persons connected to the affairs of the M/s SPML Infra ltd., but other connected company executives and engineers of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh are roped into the alleged act of criminal conspiracy amongst themselves in the supply of sub-standard runner turbines and receiving the substandard runner turbines which were not in conformity with the specified standard as it has come to light, after thorough investigation into the FIR. Therefore, it is not the case concerning the petitioners or their company namely, M/s SPML Infra ltd. only, but the other responsible persons concerned thereto, for which it is not factually possible to segregate only the petitioners’ case. This Court is of the considered opinion that it is pre-mature at the present stage of the case to say conclusively as to whether there was any fraudulent, dishonest and deceitful intention or act on the part of the petitioners acting on behalf of the company M/s SMPL Infra ltd., within the meaning of Sections 415/418/420 of the IPC in the backdrop of facts alleged, where departmental engineers and turbine manufacturing company were also allegedly involved in criminal conspiracy for wrongful gain and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and further, when contractual disputes are still subject of adjudication in two arbitral proceedings. When the allegations of criminal conspiracy and cheating are made against the petitioners in their individual capacity, although they are officials of M/s SMPL Infra ltd., at the present stage of the proceeding, this Court is restrained from considering their defence version. Petition dismissed.
|