9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the officials of Respondent No. 2/NDA Securities Ltd. However, since Respondent No. 2 failed to comply with SEBI regulations regarding such trade, the Respondent No. 2 contacted their client who claimed that they had not given any authorization for such trade. 3. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2/NDA Securities Ltd. filed a Police complaint with P.S. Barakhamba Road alleging that some fraudulent transaction has been executed on 01.04.2013 in regard to the scripts of M/s Ashutosh Paper Mills. The Police officials of P.S. Barakhamba Road directed Bombay Stock Exchange Limited to withhold release of payout of funds to counter-party members in view of Complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the Petitioner got a communication from BSE that out of the total traded scrip, the payment for approx. 70000 Shares is being withheld due to the aforesaid Complaint. 4. A Notice of Inquiry in the aforesaid Complaint was served upon Director of Petitioner, who duly appeared before the I.O and submitted the detailed Reply. The Petitioner has explained that Respondent No. 2 had bought a total of more than 1 lakh Shares of the said script from open market on that day which shows that Shares h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is liable to be dismissed. 12. The amount deposited with Bombay Stock Exchange cannot be claimed by the Petitioner since it has been deposited by Respondent No. 2, though the Petitioner is at liberty to seek return of his share. It is claimed that the investigations are in progress. The main accused, Amit Jain is absconding against whom proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C have been initiated. It is further claimed that while in the Petition, the Application is stated to be a Superdari Application, but nowhere in the Application was it stated to be so. The only relief sought was that "property can be released to person from whose possession it was taken". 13. It is further stated that proceeds of Shares of M/s Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. is not 'property'; rather was paid by Complainant. The payout proceeds of Shares of M/s Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd., which had been given by the Petitioner, cannot be released on Superdari, and only the Shares can be released on Superdari for which BSE has not been made a party. It is further stated that Shares of M/s Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. are not easily saleable in market being a penny stock of average price of Rs.2 to Rs.2.5 on the day of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igations in FIR No. 97/2015 registered on the Complaint of the Respondent No. 2, Notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was served on the Complainant Company to provide all the relevant information as well as all material evidence in their possession for further investigations. In response to the Notice, Complainant Company has provided documents including Appointment Letter of Ashish Agrawal, Client Registration Form and Account Statement of Mr. Brij Mohan Gagrani and recording of this transaction. 19. As per the allegations, the prima facie suspect Ashish Aggarwal was interrogated at length. It emerged that a phone call was made from a PCO which was attended by Mr. Pankaj (employee of Complainant Company). From the other side, the caller desired to talk to Ashish Aggarwal to whom the call was transferred. During the conversation, the Client Code was confirmed to Ashish Aggarwal and on the request of the caller, 1 lakh Shares @ Rs.15.90 per Share of M/s Ashutosh Paper Mills Ltd. were purchased in the account of Mr. Brij Mohan Gagrani. 20. The Complainant provided the voice matching details which resemble to the accused Amit Jain who had been working with one Trading Company/Royal Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Trial Court on 16.01.2019. 26. In the end, it is submitted that the role of main beneficiary, Rajneesh Kumar, Director of M/s Spire Marketing Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the present Petitioner, cannot be ruled out in the present case. 27. Submissions heard and the record perused. 28. The brief facts are that a FIR No.97/2015 dated 07.08.2015 under Section 420/120B of IPC was registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road on the directions of learned M.M under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. 29. Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s NDA Securities Ltd./Respondent No. 2 had filed a Complaint alleging that his Company is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and had been dealing in trading of Shares and Certificates and his Membership code was 3082. Shri Brij Mohan Gagrani was their esteemed customer, who opened an open Account with their Company on 25.01.2012 with deposits of Rs.15 lakhs as margin money. His unique Client Code was with the Complainant Company. He maintained Deemat Account with IL&FS Securities Limited. 30. On 01.04.2013, he received a telephonic call at his office, allegedly from Shri Brij Mohan Gagrani who placed a Purchase Order of 1 lakh Shares of M/s Ashutosh Pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him. 36. It is pertinent to observe that the Shares are not in the possession of the Petitioner, but have been handed over to the concerned Agency/SEBI for being sold in the market. On a query, it has been explained that these Shares do not have any market value as on date, for which reason the Respondent No. 2 is not inclined to take responsibility of these Shares which he had admittedly purchased for and on behalf of Brij Mohan Gagrani. There may have been some fraud committed at the level of Respondent No. 2, since allegedly, no Shares were directed to be purchased by Brij Mohan Gagrani and Respondent No. 2 may have suffered some financial loss on account of some fraud committed at its end, but that cannot be foisted on the Petitioner who in no way is a party to the alleged fraud. 37. There has been some argument raised that in the Statement of the Petitioner recorded during the further investigations as directed by the learned M.M, he has not been consistent about the number of Shares. However, learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has explained that inadvertently the correct number of Shares has not been mentioned, though the entire transaction has been truthfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
