9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-notified on 03.02.2020. However, in the meantime, it was directed that the trial court shall fix a date after the date is fixed in the present petition. On 29.11.2019, it was further noted that the respondent moved an application before the trial court seeking clarification of the impugned order and therefore, the trial court was directed to list the said application after the date was fixed in the present petition. On 03.02.2020, the said interim arrangement was extended and the matter was directed to be listed on 01.10.2020. On 08.12.2020, in absence of any appearance on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed on 25.03.2021. Further proceedings would show that the interim order so passed, was extended from time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO.1 : None Petitioner NO.2 (By Shri Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Vibhor Garg and Shri Sumit Kumar Mishra, Advocates.) Respondent : (By Shri Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate.) J U D G M E N T CRL.M.A. 41288/2019 (for stay) 1. Heard, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioners in the main petition have challenged the order on charge dated 03.10.2019, passed by learned ASJ Tis Hazari, Court, New Delhi, in Criminal Case No.33/16; and during the pendency of the main petition, have prayed for stay of the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal complaint by way of filing instant application. 3. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the list of Directors of both the companies does not reflect the name of the accused No.17, Mr. Vivek Nagpal and therefore, there is no reason to allow the trial court to proceed further with the instant complaint. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Virender Kumar Singh Anr. vs. Securities Exchange Board of India (2008) SCC OnLine Del 129. While reading paragraph 9 thereof, it is submitted that the question as to whether, a person concerned was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, has to be considered first, before the cognizance is taken. According to him, such a question cannot be left to be examined only by the trial court, when it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be highly improper if the proceedings of the trial court are stayed. While placing reliance on a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels Tours (2005) 5 SCC 661, he submits that petitioner companies can be independently prosecuted and punished without there being any connection with the accused No.17, Mr.Vivek Nagpal. He, however, submits that in any case the same would be considered at the time of the final hearing. He also submits that no prejudice would be caused to other side if the trial continues during the pendency of the instant petition. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se market in the shares, circular trading, churning of the same stock and market manipulation. Large number of shares were made available to the Ketan Parekh Group, ostensibly under guise of fiduciary transactions and those shares were sold by Ketan Parekh entities in the market. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that the subject-matter of the investigation was from 09.08.2000 to 30.06.2001 and the trial court has prima facie found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners, therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, as the same would prejudice their rights to be determined at a later stage, this court does not find any reason to stay the further proceedings of the trial court. However, it is made c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
