9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2002 SC 236) ii) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1192 Cri LJ 3752) iii) Madan Lal Sharma Vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court (2000 Cri LJ 1512) iv) Devinder Mohan Zakhmi Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust [2002 Cri LJ 485 (4487) (P&H)]." 3. The context in which the aforesaid application under Section 340 was taken out would appear in the following passages of my order passed on 18th April, 2017: "1. This application, supported by Judge's summons has been taken out by Hungerford Investment Trust, (the applicant) seeking an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Prayers have also been made for initiation of contempt proceeding in relation to making of false statements in four different pleadings in proceedings registered as C.A. No. 493 of 2006, counter-affidavit to C.A. No. 106 of 2015, counter-affidavit to C.A. No. 109 of 2015 and supplementary counter-affidavit to C.A. No. 360 of 2015. The applicant further seeks an inquiry into offences alleged to have been committed under Section 195(1)(b) of the 1973 Code, against the persons whose names have been disclosed in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That Turner Morrison Ltd has never recognised the right of the applicant Company over these 12 shares. iv. That by sale of shares by auction in 1994, the applicant is now left with no shares in Turner Morrison Ltd." The allegations made by the applicant of making false statements appear to have a bearing on the reasoning based on which the applicant's petition for mismanagement and oppression was dismissed. The judgments and orders of dismissal of the applicant's appeal (APOT No. 440 of 2007) and the Review Petition were, however, not appealed against before any superior forum. 4. The applicant has named nine individuals and a firm of Advocates & Solicitors against whom it seeks to initiate criminal prosecution for perjury. In my order of 17th June 2016, I had directed service of copy of this application upon learned counsel for Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. No service, however, has been effected upon the other persons whom the applicant seeks to prosecute. At this stage, Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no notice ought to be issued against those persons. His submission on such service is that there is bar on this Court in issuing such notice while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs under the Act, including proceedings relating to arbitration, compromise, arrangements and reconstruction, other than proceedings relating to winding up on the date of coming into force of these rules shall stand transferred to the Benches of the Tribunal exercising respective territorial jurisdiction: Provided that all those proceedings which are reserved for orders for allowing or otherwise of such proceedings shall not be transferred." So far as different applications instituted in connection with C.P. 33 of 1988 is concerned, my prima facie view is that those applications ought to be treated as part or extension of C.P. 33 of 1988, and those applications ought to be transferred to the Tribunal. In an unreported judgment of a Coordinate Bench, delivered on 22nd March 2017 (in C.A. 563 of 2013 with C.P. 611 of 1988, CC 43 of 2014 - Prasanta Kumar Mitra & Ors. Vs. India Steam Laundry (P) Ltd. & Ors.), similar view has been expressed in relation to a pending petition pertaining to allegations of oppression and mismanagement. Operation of that judgment had been stayed by the Coordinate Bench initially for a period of three weeks, and in course of hearing today, Mr. Bose, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal question is likely to arise on the question as to whether false statements alleged to have been made in connection with an application, whose maintainability before this Court is under cloud having regard to the abovereferred notification stipulating transfer of proceedings to the Tribunal can be subject-matter of a proceeding under Section 340 of the 1973 Code instituted in this Court. Moreover, facts involved in this case are complex, with the litigation itself having a long history, though Mr. Khosla sought to argue that it is a straightforward case of there being false statements in affidavits filed before this Court. In my opinion, before considering whether a direction should be issued for registering a complaint, hearing of each of the persons against whom the applicant wants this Court to proceed is necessary, and in this case such hearing would form part of the preliminary inquiry on the part of this Court. I must make it clear that such hearing would be to test the allegations of the applicant against the persons accused by him would be at the surface level only. Two other authorities were cited by Mr. Khosla to contend that the initial proceeding under Section 340 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto during the trial of the case. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same is rejected." 6. Mr. Khosla emphasized on observation of the Court in the case of Madan Lal Sharma (supra) that the aforesaid section does not envisage hearing the proposed accused before filing of complaint. But what the section does not emphasize cannot be interpreted to mean that it prohibits hearing the proposed accused at that stage. I have indicated in my order the complexity of the case in which the provisions of Section 340 of the 1973 Code is sought to be invoked. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pritish (supra) lays down in substance that principle of natural justice is not breached in the event the Court does not give opportunity of hearing to a proposed accused person at the time of formation of opinion as contemplated in Section 340 of the 1973 Code. But in an appropriate case in my opinion the Court can choose to hear the accused at the stage of formation of opinion itself and that would not be in violation of the provisions of the Code. Ratio in the case of Pritish (supra) and the three other authorities rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
