|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2041 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 2047
Fraudulent and unfair trade practices in violation of SEBI Act - price manipulation of the scrip - HELD THAT:- As no adverse findings against the mentioned 114 entities with respect to their role in the manipulation of the scrip of PAL, the directions issued against them vide interim order which were confirmed vide Orders later need not be continued.
In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated June 02, 2016, July 05, 2016, August 22, 2016, and June 02, 2017 qua aforesaid 114 entities (paragraph 9 above) with immediate effect.
The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph 9 of this order in the matter of Pine Animation Limited. As regards remaining entities in the scrip of PAL, violations under SEBI Act, SCRA, PFUTP Regulations, etc., were observed and SEBI shall continue its proceedings against them. Hence, the directions issued vide Orders dated July 05, 2016, August 22, 2016, and June 02, 2017 against the remaining 62 entities shall continue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2046
Violation of provisions of SEBI Act - price manipulation in the scrip of First Financial Services Ltd (FFSL) - Restrain orders passed from accessing the securities market and buying, selling or dealing in securities - HELD THAT:- Since, the prima facie findings are not observed in the Investigation reports in respect to 91 entities, the directions issued earlier vide interim orders need not be continued and hence need to be revoked.
Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon u/s 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with sections 11, 11(4) and 11B thereof, hereby revoke the directions issued vide interim orders qua aforesaid 91 entities with immediate effect.
The revocation of the directions issued vide the interim orders is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph 4 of this order. As regards remaining entities, violations under SEBI Act, 1992, Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, PFUTP Regulations, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 and Listing Agreement were observed and SEBI shall continue its proceedings against them.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2045
Delayed payment of dues to the SEB - Liberty granted on number of occasions to the respondent-contemnor to pay the amount by depositing the same in SEBI-Sahara account - Except hyperbolic arguments and rhetoric statements, the amount in entirety has not been paid - whether further time to the respondent-contemnor for payment of the outstanding dues be provided or proceed with the auction of the Aamby Valley property?
HELD THAT:- Grant of further time to the respondent-contemnor and entertaining post-dated cheques which are dated 11th November, 2017, would tantamount to travesty of justice and extending unwarranted sympathy to a person who is indubitably an abuser of the process of law. He, who thinks or for that matter harbours the notion that he can play with law, is under wrong impression.
We are constrained to state that the respondent-contemnor in his own way has treated this Court as a laboratory and has made a maladroit effort to play, possibly thinking that he can survive on the ventilator as long as he can. He would have been well advised that a person who goes on a ventilator may not survive for long and, in any case, a time would come when he has to be comatosed. Here comatose takes place as regards the ambitious effort made by the respondent-contemnor.
Therefore, we direct without any hesitation that the auction shall be held as per the direction given by this Court and the Official Liquidator is permitted to carry out the auction as per procedure and during the auction the Registrar General of the High Court of Bombay, who is designated as Supreme Court appointee, shall remain personally present to over see the physical auction at the auction venue at Mumbai.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2044
Clandestine removal - shortages and excesses of stock and finished goods - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the facts and circumstances, confiscation of seized goods is not proper as the goods were still lying in the factory premises, and there is no evidence of clandestine removal - cross examination of witnesses - natural justice - confiscation - penalty.
Held that: - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly held that there has been failure on the part of the Additional Commissioner to comply with the directions given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier gound of litigation. Also, Revenue have not been able to controvert that the witnesses were not the persons brought along with the search team. Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, such witnesses have to be persons of repute staying in the near vicinity or the locality where the search or seizure takes place. Such provisions have been admittedly not followed.
The proceedings are vitiated and the adverse conclusions drawn by the Additional Commissioner have been rightly held to be unsustainable by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2042
Preferential allotment of shares - Moryo Industries Limited and associated entities engaged in fraudulent activities to manipulate the price and volume of its scrip on BSE Limited - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the interim order, SEBI conducted a detailed investigation of the entire scheme employed in the instant matter, connection amongst the debarred entities, funds used for the price manipulation of the scrip of Moryo, etc., so as to ascertain the violation of securities laws.
Upon completion of investigation by SEBI, it is noted that investigation did not find any adverse evidence/findings against 85 entities in respect of their role in price manipulation in the scrip of Moryo warranting continuation of action u/s 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act.
No adverse findings against the aforementioned entities with respect to their role in the price manipulation in the scrip of Moryo warranting continuation of action u/s 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act, the directions issued against them vide interim order dated December 04, 2014 which were confirmed vide Orders dated March 18, 2016 and August 22, 2016, are liable to be revoked.
In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Sections 11, 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act, hereby revoke the Confirmatory Orders dated March 18, 2016 and August 22, 2016 qua aforesaid 85 entities (including joint allottees tabulated at paragraph 7 above) with immediate effect.
The revocation of the directions issued vide the abovementioned orders (at paragraph 9) is only in respect of the entities mentioned at paragraph 7 of this order in the matter of Moryo Industries Limited. As regards remaining 3 entities in the scrip of Moryo, violations under SEBI Act, SCRA, PFUTP Regulations, etc., were observed and SEBI shall continue its proceedings against them. Hence, the directions issued vide Order dated August 22, 2016 against remaining 3 entities viz., Moryo Industries Limited, Manoharlal Saraf and Geeta Manoharlal Saraf shall continue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2041
Assessment completed u/s 144 - non-cooperation from the assessee and failure to comply with the Notice u/s 142(1) - data available on computer was copied and seized. The information was also collected from various sources, including the Custodian, clients/brokers and companies connected with the share transactions carried out by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The income sustained by the AO ought to have been taxed in the hands of Harshad Mehta and the assessee before the Tribunal. That is how the commonality to the case of Hitesh Mehta and others was attempted to be established. The Special Counsel, appearing for the Revenue, would submit before the Tribunal that since similar issues are involved in the appeal of Smt. Pratima Mehta, the assessee before us, when the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the AO for passing a de novo assessment order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, then, he would have no objection to this course.
The argument was that no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter as the Books of Account were not audited.
Tribunal has found that all these arguments were common and to the earlier cases. On facts, it found no justification for taking a different view. We do not think such an order of the Tribunal raises any substantial questions of law.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2040
Disallowance provided for contractual obligation in the return which was not allowable being contingent/unascertainable liability - HELD THAT:- As decided in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] a provision is a liability which can be measured only by using a substantial degree of estimation. A provision is recognized when : (a) an enterprise has a present obligation as a result of a past event (b) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and (c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision can be recognized.
This principle is that if the historical trend indicated that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts u/s 37 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance on account of employees contribution to provident fund - amount claimed was not deposited in prescribed time thus being contrary to the provisions of section 43B and 36(1)(va), 2(24)(x) - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/s Instrumentation Limited. [2017 (8) TMI 1740 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] relying on case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that no disallowance can be made in respect of Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution in case such contributions are paid before due date of filing. It is not in dispute before us that the contributions have not been paid before due date of filing of the return. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2039
Interpretation of Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - exemption of intelligence and security organizations from disclosure of information - HELD THAT:- The respondent who is present in Court states that the information sought by him has become stale and, he be permitted to file a fresh application under the Act. Plainly, the respondent is not precluded from filing an application before the petitioner for information relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. In the event such application is filed, the petitioner would examine the same. Although, it would not be open for the petitioner to claim that information relating to allegations of corruption in other organisation is exempt from disclosure, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to examine whether the information sought by the petitioner is exempt under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Act.
The CIC had also awarded cost of ₹ 153/- to the petitioner, which the petitioner has not been paid as yet. The petitioner is directed to pay the sum alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.10.2012 till the date of payment. Such payment as directed be paid within a period of four weeks from today.
The petition is disposed of.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2038
Application for recalling of the order - prayer for staying the order of advertisement - notice issued by this Court in the petition was not served and ex parte order has been passed by this Court - HELD THAT:- It deserves to be noted that, the Applicants have also preferred Civil Application (O.J.) No. 418/2016 for recalling of the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Ms.Justice Abhilasha Kumari) in Company Petition No. 10/2016 on the same grounds, which are raised in this application. The said application has been dismissed by this Court in [2017 (6) TMI 1405 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and has observed thus 'The record, therefore, reveals that though notice by the normal mode of service may not have been served before the order of admission dated 07.04.2016 was passed, however, it was served by direct service on 18.02.2016 to applicants Nos. 2 to 4 and on 28.01.2016 on applicant No. 1. This means that all the applicants were served by direct service before the passing of the order dated 07.04.2016. The ground for recall of the said order on the basis of the alleged misleading presentation of facts with regard to the service of notice of the winding-up petition, therefore, cannot stand in the face of the record.'
It is a matter of record that the order, which is sought to be recalled by this application is based on the order dated 07.04.2016. Hence, on the same reasons, present application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2037
Classification of construction activities - service falls under 'Commercial & Industrial Services' but the Department classified it as 'Works Contract Services' without providing abatement - as submitted that even in ‘Works Contract’, no benefit of abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 was provided to the assessee-Appellants. Similarly, the benefit of ratio laid down in the case of CCE, Kerala vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] was not provided to the assessee.
HELD THAT:- When it is so, then we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue de novo on merit, but by providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee-Appellants to present their case with liberty to file additional evidence, if any, as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants is allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2036
Deduction u/s 80IC - assessee has filed his return of income late by 18 days and form No. 10 CCB was not furnished - HELD THAT:- The delay in filing of the return of income was conned on by the Central board of direct taxes by order dated 29/03/2017 and therefore now the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80 IC of the income tax act. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited [2003 (4) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT].
We direct the AO to consider form No. 10 CCB dated 25/09/2012 for the purpose of the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC of the income tax act. Therefore, we set aside the whole issue back to the file of AO. AO is directed to examine the claim of the assessee afresh and then decide issue on the merit considering the above form. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2035
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Challenge to action on part of the respondent No.2 Bank which proceeded against the petitioners for recovery of the amount as per the decree passed in the Lavad Suit - setting aside notices issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT:- There is no gainsaying that Section 17 of the SERFAESI Act provides for a statutory remedy of Appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is a statutory alternative recourse available. The petitioners are the 'aggrieved person' within the meaning for the purpose of Section 17 of the Act.
The petitioners may have several grounds to challenge to be considered in accordance with law in respect of the impugned notices which are issued under the SERFAESI Act, because of the said grounds raised, it could not be said that the notices were without jurisdiction. The Bank was entitled to invoke the provisions of the SERFAESI Act to recover the debt. The merits in law in Bank's action cannot be equated with absence or otherwise of the jurisdiction to take such action. Merely because certain grounds are raised to challenge notices under Section 13(2) of the SERFAESI Act, it is not possible to conclude that the action was without jurisdiction.
The remedy of Appeal is proper, efficacious and appropriate remedy, required to be resorted to by the petitioners. Though the prayers are couched in different language, they all are centripetal in nature to the validity of notices under Section 13(2) of the SERFAESI Act, for which there is a specific statutory alternative efficacious remedy with the petitioner under Section 17 of the SERFAESI Act.
It is a cardinal principle that the High Court would be loath to exercise discretion in favour of entertaining a writ petition where the Legislature has provided alternative statutory remedy. In the present case, a special forum is available in form of Debts Recovery Tribunal where appeal would lie. In the matters involving commercial disputes, it is trite that rule of availing alternative remedy should be adhered to steadfast. The principle on this aspect is unequivocal.
In AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VERSUS ASHOK SAW MILL [2009 (7) TMI 765 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held that remedy by way of appeal under Section 17 is available not only upto the stage referable to Section 13(4), but even in respect of measures taken post- 13(4) stage. In the present case, the stage at which the petitioner is beset with, is such stage.
In KANAIYALAL LALCHAND SACHDEV VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2011 (2) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has stated that the measures under Section 14 constitutes the action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and a remedy of appeal under Section 17 would be available. In that case, refusal by the High Court to entertain the writ petition was held to be fully justified.
Thus, only on the ground that the petitioners have got alternative statutory remedy as above, these petitions, without entering into any other aspects of merits of either side, are not entertained. The petitioners are relegated to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal by preferring an Appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Petition dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2034
Assessment u/s. 143(3) - Ad hoc disallowance under the head electricity charge - HELD THAT:- As regards the first grievance of the assessee, we find that AO has completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and nowhere in the assessment order, the AO has rejected the books of account. He has made the addition on ad hoc basis by just imagining that assessee might have used the electricity of assessee in its other units. AO has not brought on record any material other than his assumption.
The disallowance was not warranted, therefore ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal is allowed.
Unabsorbed depreciation - We find that the unabsorbed depreciation claim relates to the assessment year 1997-98 and 2002-03. For the first year of 1997-98, the period of limitation as per the original provisions expires in assessment year 2005-06 which is after the date of amendment of section 32(2) with effect from 01.04.2002. As per the amended provisions of section 32(2) the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier year becomes the part of depreciation of current year and therefore is eligible for adjustment against the other income.
This aspect has been examined in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. Suraj Solvent and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. [2008 (10) TMI 663 - ITAT AMRITSAR] and wherein has held that brought forward depreciation becomes part of current year depreciation and can be adjusted against other source of income. Similar findings has been made by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Special Civil Application No. 1773 in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 714 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
We hold that assessee was eligible for adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1997-98 to 2002-03. We further find that assessee at its own had filed revised depreciation chart and wherein it had surrendered the unabsorbed depreciation related to these years. However we are of the view that while completing the assessment, the AO has to pass order and allow deductions as per the provisions of law. The quantum of unabsorbed depreciation was not verified by AO - Therefore we deem it appropriate to remit this issue back to the office of the Assessing Officer who in the light of our observations and on the basis of record available will examine at the quantum of unabsorbed depreciation related to these years and will allow accordingly as per law. In view of the ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2033
Disregard to the judicial orders by police authorities - offences punishable under Sections 419, 170, 183, 186 and 120 B of the IPC - Re-arrest on the ground that petitioner was attempting to travel abroad without prior permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate, despite the judicial order directing his released on bail - HELD THAT:- After his arrest in Crime No. 177 of 2016, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, vide his order dated 8th September 2016 passed in Bail Application No. 1737 of 2016. It is seen from the said order that no condition prohibiting the petitioner to travel abroad or to seek permission of the concerned court while travelling abroad was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail, during the pendency of the trial. It is not pointed out, that the State at any point of time, had challenged this order, or prayed to get it modified from the same court by imposing additional conditions against the petitioner restricting his travel to foreign countries.
The Red Corner look out notice is not pertaining to some other crime but it is in respect of the very same crime bearing No. 177 of 2016. Once the petitioner is arrested in the said crime, red corner notice issued at some prior stage cannot be made use to re-arrest the petitioner, despite the judicial order directing his released on bail. The police, infact, committed breach of order releasing the petitioner on bail by re-arresting him on the pretext of the alleged Red Corner notice issued during investigation.
Further illegality seems to have been committed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while passing the order dated 19th August 2017 rejecting bail application filed by the petitioner after his re-arrest in pursuant to so called Red Corner notice by the police. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed error of law in holding that the petitioner ought to have sought permission of the Metropolitan Magistrate prior to travelling abroad. No such fetters were imposed on his liberty by the superior court while releasing the petitioner on bail on 8th September 2016. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 19th August 2017 cannot be sustained.
The impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrat is quashed and set aside - The petitioner should be released forthwith as he is on bail in pursuant to order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai - petition allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2032
Addition u/s 40A - excessive payment made to the Directors of the Company - excess rebate and discount - disallowance of bad debts - ad-hoc disallowance of expenses as not verifiable in the absence of books of accounts, supporting bills and vouchers - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- All are questions of fact, which have been considered by Tribunal and decided against appellant recording its finding in favour of Assessee by confirming with order passed by Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals).
Since there is a concurrent finding of facts, we do not find that any substantial questions of law has arisen.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2031
Interpretation of statute - minimum period of six months stipulated Under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent - the time is mandatory or can be relaxed in any exceptional situations? - HELD THAT:- The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling of the period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.
In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has to have the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the provision. This principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" (9th Edn., 2004), has been cited with approval in KAILASH VERSUS NANHKU & ORS. [2005 (4) TMI 542 - SUPREME COURT] holding that 'The study of numerous cases on this topic does not lead to formulation of any universal Rule except this that language alone most often is not decisive, and regard must be had to the context, subject-matter and object of the statutory provision in question, in determining whether the same is mandatory or directory.'
Where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period Under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following:i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year Under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony - If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the concerned Court.
Since it is held that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2030
Discarding of statements made by the Director of the assessee company during the courts of survey u/s 133A and retracted after 34 months - assessment was finalized u/s 143(3) and survey operation u/s 133A(1) was carried out at the premises of the assessee
HELD THAT:- No contention was raised before the Tribunal regarding regarding retraction therefore, after 34 months, it will not be appropriate to reverse the finding of the Tribunal.
The issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2029
Coercive steps taken for recovering the tax due - grant of stay on the judgement - HELD THAT:- The interim order passed by this Court on 29th May 2017 is modified by permitting the Respondents to proceed with the assessment but not take any coercive steps for recovery of any demand.
The writ petition is adjourned sine die.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2028
Exemption from excise duty as per N/N.76/86 dated 10.02.1986 and Board Circular No.76-73/6/2004 dated 28.01.2004 - manufacturing readymade garments & accessories - period of 01.03.2002 to 15.03.2004 - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- It appears that the appellant was found to have mis-declared the subject goods as handicrafts in E.R.-1. The process of manufacture was not disclosed, it came to the notice only when the officers have visited the factory premises. The appellant was also paying the duty suo-moto by considering that items as subject to duty. It is only after the visit of the factory, the demand was confirmed though the show cause notice was issued earlier.
Due to the mis-declaration and non supply of the process, the notice is not time bared.
On following the ratio laid down in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS LOUIS SHOPPE [1995 (3) TMI 108 - SC ORDER] where the major portion of the work was done by the machine too, hence, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2027
Release on bail - deposit of a sum of Rs. 75 crores and on execution of a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 crores - the first complainant on caveat submits that if the money is released as directed by the High Court, he shall have no objection for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid, provided that the money which was deposited is released back to the claimants by the Commissioner appointed by the High Court.
HELD THAT:- here are 136 claimants. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states that all these claimants are ready to make the aforesaid statement on payment of dues as directed by the High Court. This is acceptable to the petitioner as well. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed off with the following directions:
a) All the claimants are directed to approach the High Court with the aforesaid request by filing affidavits stating that they have no objection in quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
b) On filing the affidavits the High Court shall quash the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
c) Till the time these affidavits are filed and the order of the quashing is passed by the High Court the amount shall not be disbursed and the amount shall be disbursed only after filing of the affidavits.
d) The petitioner shall also be involved in the aforesaid process so that he is able to verify that only genuine persons have filed the affidavits and received the payments.
SLP disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
