9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 16.8.2010 of this Court and initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused. It is this express prayer which has been dismissed vide order dated 3.12.2018 of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court as disposed of by Hon ble Mr.Justice Jayant Nath vide order dated 3.12.2018. The prayers that have been made by the applicant, i.e., the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, vide Co.Appln. Nos. 577/2020, 602/2020 and 625/2020 have necessarily to be placed before Hon ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath in view of the order dated 3.12.2018 qua Co.Appln. No. 1089/2018 - Subject to orders of the Hon ble the Chief Justice, the proceedings of the Co.Appln. Nos. 577/2020, 602/2020 and 625/2020 and Crl.M.(Co.) No.3/2008 be placed before Hon ble Mr.Justice Jayant Nath on 7.10.2021. - Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 and Co.Appl.577/2008, Co.Appl.602/2008 and Co.Appl.625/2008 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2021 - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA Petitioner Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Khosla and Ms. Aadya Mishra, Advocates Respondents Through: Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Anand Mohan Mishra, Advocate for respondents ORDER ANU MALHOTRA, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein it was observed thus:- 9. .. .. This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. Petitioner sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of Registrar (Vigilance) pursuant to the inquiry conducted by him in furtherance of the aforesaid order of this Court. The issue basically relates to the user of the AGM minutes of M/s Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd. dated 30.09.2006 in the court proceedings to substantiate the plea of the respondents before Company Law Board, which minutes are claimed to be forged. On perusal of the copy of those minutes, it transpires that those have been authenticated by the respondent Vinod Surha and also reflect the presence of all the three respondents in the AGM, which is also claimed to have been attended by Sonia Khosla, one of the Directors whereas according to the petitioner, Sonia Khosla was not in India on that very day. This controversy can be resolved without going into the inquiry report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance) pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.02.2010 by asking the parties to file the affidavit. Petitioner and the respondents may file affidavit verifying whether or not any AGM was actually' held on that date and they attended the same and whether or not Ms. Sonia Khosla was present in that meeting. Petitioner Sonia Khosla shall also produce her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by Ms. Sonia Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc. (Co.). No. 3 of 2008 . Likewise the question whether Mr. R.K. Garg was validly inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in Co. Appeal No. (SB) 23 of 2009 filed by Mr. R.K. Garg in the High Court, also become otiose. (emphasis supplied) 22. The only aspect on which some directions need to be given are, as to what should be the interim arrangement. The Bakshi Group wants orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by CLB to continue the interregnum. The Khosla Group on the other hand refers to orders dated 11.4.2008 as it is their submission that this was a consent order passed by the High Court after the orders of the CLB and, therefore, this order should govern the field in the meantime.. 23. After considering the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to either enforce orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by the CLB or orders dated 11.4.2008 passed by the High Court. Fact remains that there has been a complete deadlock, as far as affairs of the Company are concerned. The project has not taken off. It is almost dead at present. Unless the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 193 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Bakshi Ors. vs. Sonia Khosla (dead) By LRs being SLP (Criminal) 6873/2010 dated 8.5.2014 nothing further survives in the present case. 16. This petition stands disposed of with the following directions by the Supreme Court regarding the present proceedings:- 21.....In view of the aforesaid consensus, about the course of action to be adopted in deciding the disputes between the parties, we direct the Company Law Board to decide Company Petition No.114 of 2007 filed before it by Ms.Sonia Khosla within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Since, it is the CLB which will be deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.PC filed by Ms.Sonia Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc. (Co.) No.3 of 2008. Likewise the question whether Mr. R.K. Garg was validly inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in Co. Appeal No.(SB) 23 of 2009 filed by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs ought to be taken to their close expeditiously and the offenders be committed to trial for perjury committed before the erstwhile Company Law Board on 1.1.2008 in terms of the false statement made in paragraph 7 of the CM No. 1/2008 filed by the offenders. Co.Appl. No. 578/2020 is filed by the applicant seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the orders. Co.Appln. No. 602/2020 dated 7.10.2020 was filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner represented through her legal representative with virtually the same prayer as made vide Co.Appl. No. 577/2020 with the further submission made thereon that the Court proceeds to act on the inquiry report dated 31.5.2010 and takes the proceedings to its close expeditiously whilst committing the offenders to trial for the perjury committed before the Company Law Board on 7.1.2008 in terms of the false statement made in paragraph 7 of CA No. 1/2008. Co.Appl.No. 625/2020 dated 16.10.2020 was filed by the legal representative of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, both for civil contempt as well as for criminal contempt, see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed to be placed on record and has since been so filed on 25.9.2021 with the matter having been reserved for pronouncement for today, i.e., 30.9.2021. 15. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 23.9.2021 along with the documents to the effect: 2. Annexure 1: Order dated 13-08-2020 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 4 of 2019 3. Annexure 2: Order dated 05-05-2021 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 4 of 2019 4. Annexure 3: Order dated 06-05-2008 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 1 of 2008 5. Annexure 4: Order dated 28-072008 passed in CLB on CA No. 373 of 2008 6. Annexure 5: Summoning order 03-12-2009 by Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari. 7. Annexure 6: Order dated 15-02-2010 passed in these proceedings. 8. Annexure 7: Proceedings of the learned Registrar (Vigilance). 9. Annexure 8: Enquiry report dated 31-05-2010 10. Annexure 9: SLP (Crl.) No. 6873 of 2010 filed on 25-07-2010 11. Annexure 10: Supreme Court Judgment dated 08-05-2014 12. Annexure 11: CLB order dated 03-06-2014 in CP No.114 of 2007 13. Annexure 12: High Court order dated 24-07-2014 in Co.A.(SB)No. 35 of 2014. 14. Annexure 13: CLB order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
