9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as GECI ) is one of the subsidiaries of GEC plc. in which GEC plc. holds 67 per cent. of its equity shares, registered in India under the Companies Act having its registered office at Magnet House, 6, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. It manufactures sophisticated/high tech electrical equipment. Genelec Limited (hereinafter referred to as GL ) was incorporated in Maharashtra on September 7, 1957, under the name Hindoo Lighting Industries Pvt. Ltd. which was changed to Genelec Limited with effect from January 16, 1978. GECI acquired shares in GL in 1963 when the shareholding was substantially increased and GL became a subsidiary of GECI in 1965. GL issued capital to the public through prospectus dated March 31, 1982, and through the same prospectus 2,23,461 equity shares of Rs. 10 each of GL then held by GECI were also offered for sale to the public. After such allotments on August 16, 1982, the shareholding of GECI in GL came down to 33 per cent. of GL's paid-up equity share capital. At present GL is a public limited company having its registered office at Magnet House, Narottam Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay-400 038, and its head office is located at Second Flo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectors of GL and its shareholders had always appointed its managing director and wholetime directors with substantial power of management to carry on the business of GL ; (e) GL is managed by its managing director, and wholetime directors supported by a team of experienced and highly qualified executives subject to the supervision by the board of GL independent of GECI. GECI had nothing to do with the management of GL and had no control over the affairs of GL. 6. The said accused persons also made further representations as follows : All along, GL was a profit making company and the said company was having tremendous future potentialities of growth. GL has all along been paying dividends at substantially high rate. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 10 and 11 and Alan Taylor also gave a very rosy picture about the financial performance of GL and its high potentialities and bright future prospects. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid representations including information supplied by the accused persons, the audited balance-sheet and profit and loss account of GL for the nine months period ending on March 31, 1988, and the various statements, details and information bearing the init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation from B.K. Banerjee, managing director of GL that within two weeks of his joining GL on November 1, 1988, he had come to realise that the company had gone hollow and that the 1988 annual report presented an erroneous picture. Mr. Banerjee suggested that for the year ending on March 31, 1988, there was a shortfall to the tune of Rs. 12.50 crores (rupees 11 crores loss instead of rupees 1.5 crores profit). The complainant further came to learn around the first week of August, 1989, that accused No. 3 also made a statement to the effect that after accused No. 1 took over the chairmanship of the GEC group in India around 1986 including GL, things changed and from that time GL became a division of GECI. He further stated that accused No. 1, A.K. Khosla, assumed the role of managing GL directly along with accused No. 7, P.G. Higgins. Accused No. 3 confessed that all directions for day-to-day management used to come from accused No. 1 who even used to pass on instructions on operational matters directly to operational managers and engineers. He further made a statement that things really got out of control from then onwards and the sole objective of accused No. 1 and accused No, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lc. went on conspiring with directors of GECI and the then managing director, the then finance director and other directors and senior executives of GL to dishonestly conceal the true state of affairs of GL in its accounts as also in the published annual accounts and balance-sheets and half-yearly unaudited financial results which were published under the Stock Exchange Regulations. (v) Various documents, correspondence and reports of GL revealed that the balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts of GL were tailored, manipulated and published in furtherance of such conspiracy to show profits and conceal loss. The said accused persons all entered into criminal conspiracy to deceive the prospective buyers of shares held by GEC in GL. 13. On June 27, 1987, the accused, Pratip Lal Roy, the then managing director of GL, in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy wrote to accused P.G. Higgins and A.K. Khosla, we agreed to let 'M' know of the Genelec budget for 1987-88. I have had a table below prepared with the object in mind for showing the operating and trading results for the last four years and the one projected for the next year showing all the 'flim flam' ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GECI plc., GECI and the said accused persons purported to induce the buyers of shares by preparing and giving fraudulently and dishonestly fabricated, false and tailored trading and operating results and with that end in view the said accused persons along with others went on fabricating false documents, preparing dummy and fictitious bills as bills receivable and showed purported profits from the business knowing fully well and/or having sufficient reasons to believe that those were false and/or fictitious and that such purported profits were made on paper only by falsifying the accounts, making fictitious bills and using forged documents as genuine. On scrutiny of the account papers, vouchers, etc., the complainant came to learn that GL's losses for the year ending on March 31, 1989, would be about Rs. 17 crores and out of such losses about Rs. 11 crores would represent the losses in respect of previous years. The accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly manipulated and falsified such accounts to conceal such prior period losses and cheat the complainant. 15. The chartered accountant firm, M/s. Bansi Mehta and Company, Bombay, had been engaged to make a broad review o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue having regard to the veiled object of the lame prosecution. It has further been contended that the dispute is really of civil nature and the present criminal proceedings has been launched with the oblique motive of exerting pressure upon the petitioners to make some concessions and pecuniary benefits to the complainant-company. It has been contended that further continuance of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice, the impugned proceedings should be quashed even at this initial stage. Lastly, it has been contended that in any event the prosecution is not maintainable as against the two companies. 19. Mr. Roy has, on the other hand, contended that the petition of complaint and the initial deposition prima facie disclose commission of the offences alleged and at this initial stage when only process has been issued the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed. As the complaint and the initial deposition prima facie reveal the essential ingredients of the offence alleged ; the complainant-opposite party should be allowed to prove the allegations by adducing evidence. It has further been contended that the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed is mandatory imprisonment and the court has no discretion to impose any other punishment, such as fine, a company cannot be prosecuted in respect of such an offence. 22. Both the tests, viz., the test of mens rea and the test of mandatory sentence of imprisonment, were applied in the case of Kusum Products Ltd. v. S.K. Sinha [1980]126ITR804(Cal) . In that case, a company was prosecuted under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. Although under Section 2(3) the definition of a person is wide enough to include a company or any juristic person, the word person could not have been used in Section 277 in the sense given in the definition clause. That this is the intention of Parliament is clear because imprisonment has been made compulsory for an offence under Section 277 of the Act, A company or a juristic person cannot possibly be sent to prison and it is not open to a court to impose a sentence of fine or not to award the punishment if the court finds the company guilty under the section. The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. One of the earliest decisions of the Supreme Court on the scope of Section 561A of the old Code (corresponding to Section 482 of the new Code) is the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, 1960CriLJ1239 . It has been held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily, criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. 26. Some of the categories of the cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised are : (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that at this stage the Magistrate has absolutely no jurisdiction to go into any material or evidence which may be produced by the accused. It has been held that the order issuing process may be set aside or the proceedings may be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is, however, necessary to point out that in this case the Supreme Court was really concerned with the scope of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 202 of the Code and the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the said decision are to be understood in that background. The said observations are relevant in the context of the exercise of revisional powers of the High Court relating to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order of the Magistrate. As it appears from paragraph 1 of the said decision, the accused petitioners in that case challenged the order of the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204(1)(b) of the Code and prayed for setting aside the order of the Magistrate. As such the court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. 30. In the case of Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala,: 1978CriLJ1687 , the Supreme Court held as follows : Now as the Magistrate was restricted to finding out whether there was a prima facie case or not for proceeding against the accused and could not enter into detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case and the scope of the revisional jurisdiction was very limited the High Court could not in our opinion launch on a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits. 31. In the case of Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishnaiah, 1981CriLJ627 , it was held that in quashing a proceeding the High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint petition if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence. In Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983CriLJ159 , the Supreme Court reiterated this view and held that the proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same no offence is const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh Karam Singh Punjabi, 1990CriLJ1869 , the Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing the charge, the court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Supreme Court has further held that the court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. 35. In Madavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre 1988CriLJ853 the Supreme Court had similarly held that the legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. The Supreme Court has further observed that it is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that the essential ingredients of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, have not been alleged. This could ultimately be a matter to be thrashed out in the trial. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in a short judgment held as follows 1991CriLJ1897 : After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the documents, we are of the opinion that this matter is purely of a civil nature. As pointed out earlier there were arbitration proceedings and further the matter is pending for more than 17 years. Having regard to all the circumstances, particularly that the matter is purely of a civil nature, we feel that it is a fit case in which the proceedings taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire proceedings now pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, are quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 39. This, decision shows that there, is no hard and fast rule, no strait-jacket formula, no rigid test laid down by the Supreme Court which must invariably apply to every application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, on consideration of documents and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aji Rao Scindia, 1988CriLJ853 , would also suggest that the High Court may take into consideration materials placed before it which were not before the Magistrate to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue and whether the court is sought to be utilised for any oblique purpose and whether chances of ah ultimate conviction are bleak. 42. In the case of N. C. Nagpal [1979] 2 CHN 198, it has been held that, while exercising inherent power for quashing a proceeding, the court can look into the materials besides those which were before the learned Magistrate for issuing process. The court made the following observation : While setting aside an order of a Magistrate issuing process in . exercise of the revisional jurisdiction this court has to confine itself to the materials from which he obtained satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused ; and those materials necessarily will be the statement of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Section 202. The High Court exercises revisional powers only to ascertain whether the impugned order of the inferior criminal court is cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a party quashed a criminal proceeding relating to offences of criminal trespass, intimidation and theft on the ground of complete suppression of the fact of delivery of possession of the suit premises to the petitioner by the court bailiff in execution of the writ of delivery of possession issued by a competent civil court which makes the allegations of trespass, intimidation and theft untenable. In that case, the court relied upon the certified copy of the writ of delivery of possession and the bailiff's return which were produced by the petitioners. Relying upon the same the court has held that the proceeding was a mala fide one based on suppression of a material fact and that the court had been sought to be utilised for an oblique purpose and the chances of an ultimate conviction were bleak and further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be a mere abuse of the process of the court and on that ground quashed the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners. Similarly, this court quashed a criminal proceeding under Section 448/427 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground of suppression of materials within the knowledge of the complainant in the case of Ashutos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncern of the court is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of the court (see Muniswamy's case, 1977CriLJ1125 ). Though the court may look into the uncontroverted and incontrovertible documents placed before it in order to decide whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court, it cannot embark upon a detailed enquiry by thorough appreciation of evidence which can be done at the stage of trial. 45. Keeping the above in mind let me now consider whether the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed. 46. Let me first consider the alleged offence of cheating. It is well-settled that the offence of cheating is established only when all the following ingredients are present : (a) That the representation made by the accused was false ; (b) that the accused knew that the representation was false at the very time when he made it ; (c) that he made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the person to whom it was made ; (d) that he thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do something which would otherwise not have been done or omitted. 47. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent with the terms of the agreement dated December 2, 1988, which is annexure A to the complaint. In paragraph 9 of the agreement, it has been clearly stated that SWL on the basis of the audited accounts of GL up to the financial year ending on March 31, 1988, and unaudited statements up to the period September 30, 1988, and after obtaining explanations and information from the managing director and wholetime directors of GL on the assets and liabilities of GL, its needs for funds and its future plans has offered to purchase from GECI out of its holding 5,37,000 fully paid equity shares of Rs. 10 each in GL at a price of Rs. 65 per share. There is no whisper about the alleged second representation within the four corners of the agreement. On November 25, 1988, the officers of SWL asked GECI for detailed information on as many as 23 items including debtors, provisions for doubtful debts, work-in-progress and works contracts of GL (annexure C pages 135-137). On November 26, 1988, on the basis of the request made by GECI to the management of GL to furnish the information asked for GL passed on the necessary information in a separate file to GECI (annexure C page 138). On Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the offer within 10 days to Rs. 65 per share which was ultimately accepted by and between the parties and the agreement for sale was executed on December 2, 1988. Judged in the context of the above facts and circumstances, the allegation that the accused persons gave a very rosy picture about high profits, bright future prospects and tremendous future potentialities of growth, etc., inducing SWL to purchase the shares at the price of Rs. 65 per share appears to be patently absurd and inherently improbable. 52. Moreover, untrue praise of goods meant for sale does not amount to cheating (W.H. Da Costa v. J. P. Deejholts AIR1925Cal605 . In this connection, reference may be made to the comments of Gour as to the case of a tradesman puffing off his goods and thereby inducing the buyer to pay a higher price : Since such praise is quite common of which every buyer is and/or should be aware, it cannot be said that he is induced to purchase the goods by such deception (Gour's Penal Law, 10th Edition page 3644). In Muhammad Ibrahim Haji Moula Baksh v. T.C.R. Naitghton, AIR 1941 Sind 198, the complainant, on high hopes being held out by the managing director of a business, entere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent. of the total net consideration which will be adjusted against the price (page 108). In view of these specific terms and conditions contained in the agreement, the allegations that SWL was deceived by the false representations made by GECI knowing them to be false are patently absurd and inherently improbable. SWL entirely relied upon its own judgment and skill and not upon any representation on behalf of GECI. The principle of caveat emptor would be clearly applicable. There is, however, warranty of liquidated damages up to the maximum of 2 per cent. of the consideration money. The dispute over purchase of the share, if any, is purely of a civil nature. 54. The entire basis of the complaint is the alleged hidden loss during the year ending on March 31, 1988, thereby causing deception by suppression of the material facts and showing a profit of Rs. 1.05 crores instead of loss of Rs. 10.28 crores. The said allegations are based on the report of M/s. Bansi Mehta and Co. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Bansi Mehta who was entrusted by the board with the task of broadly reviewing the financial results of the company with a view to identifying the major causes contributing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Mr. Banerjee was fully aware of the financial state of GL he did not pass on any information to the' Chhabrias until July, 1989, and quietly watched the completion of the transaction which took place on March 13, 1989, when the consideration amount was paid by SWL to GECI and only in July, 1989, he informed the Chhabrias of what he had come to know on November 15, 1988. Even if it is assumed that Mr. Banerjee had kept quiet till December 2, 1988, it is inconceivable that he would not reveal the truth even after December 2, 1988, and would allow the Chhabrias to make payment of the prices of the shares on March 13, 1989. Mr. Banerjee is not a party to the alleged conspiracy but is an important prosecution witness. 55. It also appears that the new management of GL itself acted on the basis that there was no loss during the period 1987-88. Even after the report of M/s. Bansi Mehta and Co. on December 27, 1989, when Mr. M.R. Chhabria was the chairman of the board of directors of GL, a special resolution was moved for the approval of the shareholders for the appointment of Mr. B.K. Banerjee as the executive vice-chairman and the managing director of the company for a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ages 12-13 of the supplementary affidavit) and the profit and loss account for the nine months period ending on March 31, 1988 (page 15 of the supplementary affidavit), shows a, profit of Rs. 1,05,31,857. The audited balance-sheet and the profit and loss account were approved by the shareholders in the annual general meeting and it became final. This was sought to be reopened in the annual report of 1988-89 alleging that there was prior period loss of Rs. 10.28 crores. The statutory auditors did not accept this. They rejected the theory of prior period loss and stated in their report dated November 15, 1989, as under : In the absence of adequate information and explanation, we are unable to express any opinion whether the estimates of the loss in respect of WIP and the estimate of the provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 461.04 lakhs and Rs. 401.11 lakhs respectively disclosed as per prior period items are appropriate , (pages 41 and 48 of the supplementary affidavit). 57. Even in the annual report in respect of the year 1989-90, the statutory auditors in their report at page 57 (supplementary affidavit) did not accept the contention that there was prior pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts is necessarily subjective and judgmental in nature. The question whether some debts are bad debts is judgmental in nature. Errors of judgment are not justiciable. 60. The new management of GL reiterated their, faith in their statutory auditors, M/s. Lovelock and Lewes, who are still their statutory auditors and could not suggest that the auditors in not accepting the story of hidden loss had acted improperly or erroneously. On the other hand, Mr. T.S. Venkatesan who filed the complaint on behalf of SWL stated before the BIFR that they have high opinion about the competence of M/s. Lovelock and Lewes . 61. The high-powered Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( the BIFR , for short) established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, also rejected the contention that GL had suffered loss in the previous year. Sick industrial company has been defined in Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as an industrial company which has at the end of any financial year accumulated losses equal to or exceeding its entire net worth and has also suffered cash losses in such financial year an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in Brojnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, 1956CriLJ156 , in which the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 18 (at page 70) : It is clear, therefore, that in order to constitute a court in the strict sense of the term an essential condition is that the court should have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial Tribunal, power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and authoritativeness which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the finding and the order of the BIFR that GL is not a sick company as there have been no prior losses for 1987-88 is within the exclusive competence of the BIFR and under Section 26 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985, no civil court can entertain a similar issue. As the appeal against the said order has been dismissed, the order of the BIFR has attained finality and it can only be challenged by an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by way of special leave. According to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, the BIFR is, therefore, a court within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and as there is complete ouster of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions in the complaint that there were hidden losses. Because of such inconsistency it becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 read with Section 43 of the Evidence Act. So, the order of the BIFR is relevant though not conclusive. 65. Let me next deal with the forgery group of offences under Sections 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery has been defined in Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to mean making of a false document with any of the intents mentioned therein ; and false document has been defined under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the first clause of Section 464 which is relevant for our purpose, a person makes a false document if he makes or signs a document--(i) intending it to be believed that it was made or signed or executed by, or by the authority of, some person by whom, or by whose authority, he knows it was not made or signed, or (ii) with the intent that it shall be believed that it was made or signed at a time when he knows it was not so made or signed. To bring the offence within the four corners of the section, the false document must be created with a view to making it appear, that it was made by some other person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be quashed at the initial stage, the Supreme Court pointed out that there may be a category of cases in which even though the allegations made against the accused do constitute an offence alleged there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 66. Except vague allegations lacking in material particulars, there is nothing in the complaint to constitute the offence of conspiracy to which the accused are alleged to be parties. Certain letters have been referred to. But no such letter was produced in course of the initial examination of the complainant and the witnesses. Where the accusations are based on documents, the documents themselves must be produced and mere oral evidence will not be sufficient. There is not even oral evidence about the basic facts from which conspiracy may be inferred. It is not enough for the complainant to merely allege that the offence has been committed. The complainant is required to produce the evidence before the Magistrate at least for the purpose of satisfying the Magistrate that the allegations are not empty accusations but that sufficient evidence is ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to withdraw and/or soft pedal its cases against GEC and will also not file criminal cases against GEC's directors who had a fiduciary responsibility to Genelec. The contents of the letter reveal the blackmailing tactics adopted by SWL to coerce the petitioners to come to terms. It is to be noted that this letter was sent on March 9, 1990, and the complaint was filed on April 19, 1990. As the demand was not met by the petitioners, SWL rushed to the criminal court on April 19, 1990, though it waited quietly for about one year from the date of knowledge of the alleged cheating and falsification of accounts. 69. Thus, the special features and the related facts and circumstances as referred to above would manifestly show that the allegations in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable and that the complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case. The dispute is of civil nature and the impugned criminal proceeding appears to be frivolous. vexatious and mala fide initiated with the oblique motive of exerting pressure upon the petitioners to pay a huge amount of money and make other concessions for the alleged loss suffered by the complainant by purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
