1999 (12) TMI 820 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Recall of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.
2. Alleged involvement of the petitioner in the criminal conspiracy and cheating by Anubhav group of companies.
3. Lifting the corporate veil to determine the petitioner's liability.
4. Petitioner's claim of not being served with any summons.
5. Jurisdiction and appropriateness of invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Recall of Non-Bailable Warrant:
The petitioner sought to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against him in C.C. No. 1067 of 1999. The petitioner argued that he was neither a promoter nor actively associated with Anubhav Agrotech Ltd. and was not involved in the alleged criminal conspiracy. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner should approach the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall the warrant. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to seek remedy before the magistrate.

2. Alleged Involvement in Criminal Conspiracy:
The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case involving the alleged cheating of deposits made by the public, amounting to Rs. 268 crores. The court noted that the petitioner was a director of Anubhav Agrotech Ltd. during the relevant period and that there were materials suggesting the diversion of funds from Anubhav Plantation Ltd. to Anubhav Agrotech Ltd. The court held that the petitioner's involvement in the conspiracy could not be ruled out at this stage and must be investigated thoroughly.

3. Lifting the Corporate Veil:
The court referred to the principle of lifting the corporate veil in cases of alleged diversion of funds and criminal conspiracy. It cited several Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that the corporate veil could be pierced to uncover the reality behind the corporate entity. The court found it immaterial whether the petitioner was a director of Anubhav Plantation Ltd. or its group of companies, as the criminal conspiracy could involve individuals not necessarily holding directorial positions. The court decided that the issue of lifting the corporate veil should be addressed during the trial after the filing of the final charge sheet.

4. Petitioner's Claim of Not Being Served with Summons:
The petitioner contended that he was never served with any summons in C.C. No. 1067 of 1999 and was unaware of the non-bailable warrant. He expressed willingness to appear before the magistrate to demonstrate his bona fides. The court held that such contentions should be addressed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. Jurisdiction and Appropriateness of Invoking Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall the non-bailable warrant. The court, however, emphasized that the petitioner should first approach the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court referred to previous decisions, including Saleem P.A. v. Inspector of Police and Sundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that accused individuals should not directly approach the High Court under Section 482 without first invoking Section 70(2). The court dismissed the petition, directing the respondent to execute the non-bailable warrant without delay.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition to recall the non-bailable warrant, directing the petitioner to seek remedy before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation into the alleged criminal conspiracy and cheating, and the potential lifting of the corporate veil during the trial to determine the petitioner's liability.

← Previous Next →