Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 827 - HC - Companies LawSeeking grant of regular bail - money laundering - siphoning off/diversion of the funds - false statements - beneficiary of the transactions - Dummy director or not - applicability of twin-stringent conditions stipulated under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner claims himself to be a Dummy Director. However, there is nothing on record to authenticate the said plea. As per the Companies Act, a Director is required to discharge his duties with due diligence ensuring that there is no siphoning off and/or diverting of the funds. Still further having actively participated in the affairs of the Company and having signed the Financial Statements, the petitioner cannot take the plea that him being a dormant Director, no liability can be fastened upon him. The economic offences, being against the Society at large, have been strictly dealt with in the recent past. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Mandanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], while considering the constitutional validity and applicability of restrictive conditions of bail provided under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has held that money laundering is an offence against the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The complaint was filed only after detailed investigation report. The said investigation reveals the petitioner’s involvement in 88 Companies of SRS Group. The Directors of the said Companies, including the petitioner, had submitted false statements of the debtors, inflated purchase and sale figures and deliberately concealed the material facts. The said Companies are accused of siphoning off the funds to the tune of Rs.671.48 crore and diverting the funds of Rs.645.86 crore from SRS Group of Companies by way of separate/distinct transactions. The petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail - Petition dismissed.
|