1997 (10) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Hindustan Development Corp. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Act with its registered office at Modi Building, 27, Sir R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are its Chairman, Managing Director, Directors and Secretary, etc. Petitioner No. 7 A.B.C. Compartments (P.) Ltd. N.C.E. Buildings, Jadav Pur, Calcutta is petitioner No. 1, Registrar and Share-transfer Agent rendering services to share-holders of the company on behalf of petitioner No. 1. 3. Respondent No. 1 Kushal Chand Bader is a member of Pink City Investors' Forum, M.I. Road. Jaipur (Raj.) and is, allegedly, a registered shareholder of petitioner No. 1 under folio Nos. K-123135, K-123677, K-123097 and K-123118. 4. Around December 1991....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany and claimed payment of interest due thereupon besides registration of transfer1 in his favour. The petitioner-company did neither, as alleged by respondent No. 1, returned the Debentures after registration of transfer in his name nor pay the interest amount of Rs. 40,930.86 to him despite repeated demands and reminders. 6. Based on above facts respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioners in the court of Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur who took cognizance of offence under section 113(2) of the Act on 16-9-1994 and summoned the petitioners as accused thereunder. After putting in appearances before him the petitioners challenged Magis- trate's order dated 16-9-1994 but the learned Magistrate, vide his impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s considered and treated as a revision application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code. 10. The points as raised by Mr. Sharma and as mentioned above stand covered against the petitioners by the following decisions, namely :- (1) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Smt. Indra Kala [1997] 88 Comp. Cas. 348 (Raj.) (2) Federal Bank Ltd. v. Smt. Sarala Devi Rathi [1997] 88 Comp. Cas. 323 (Raj.) (3) Heridilia Unimess Ltd. v. Smt. Renit Jain [1995] 46 Comp. L.J. 45 (Raj.) (4) Ghan Shyam Chaturbhuj v. Industrial Ceramic (P.) Ltd. [1995] Comp. L.J. 51 (MP) (5) P.C. Wadhwa v. S.C. Bhatia [1995] 4 Suppl. SCC 244 (SC). 11. In view of the above decisions it is held that the learned Magistrate at Jaipur had the territorial jurisdiction t....