TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not on the basis of rendition of accounts but is on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2011. It is further held by the Magistrate that out of ₹ 7.35 crores, ₹ 2.75 crores have been paid by the accused to the complainant. It was also held that after receiving ₹ 3.25 crores, the complainant party was to help the accused party in getting the FIR quashed. It is also admitted that FIR has not been quashed so far - Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the Court below held that the existing liability is not proved. The findings given by learned Court below in the impugned judgments dated 25.11.2014 are correct, as per evidence and law. Learned Magistrate has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. In no way, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... huge amount was outstanding against accused-company through its directors accused No.2 to 4 and a dispute started between the parties which resulted in lodging of an FIR No.121 dated 11.08.2010 and during the pendency of the bail VINEET GULATI 2016.02.04 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.A-325-MA of 2015 and connected cases -3- proceedings, accused No.1 through accused No.2 entered into a compromise with the complainant and his associates. Said compromise was reduced into writing between the parties on 25.11.2011 and accused persons undertook to pay a sum of ₹ 7.35 crores to complainant and his associates and as per compromise, various post dated cheques were given. It is the case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd loss basis whereby the complainant party was to bear 35% losses as well as entitled to 35% profits. Initial investment of the complainant in the joint venture was ₹ 3.26 crores and compromise which was arrived at was for an amount of ₹ 7.35 crores. He further stated that he has no knowledge about the profit and loss status in the business as no accounts were ever rendered to complainant party by accused party. He refused the suggestion that complainant party itself caused a breach of compromise existing between the parties by not disclosing the source of funds and by not giving the income tax confirmation to the income tax authorities on or before 15.01.2012. He also refused the suggestion that since the complainant party had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the accused party to them and cheques were issued only because of compromise dated 25.11.2011, which took place during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the base of existing liability for present case is not on the basis of rendition of accounts but is on the basis of compromise dated 25.11.2011. It is further held by the Magistrate that out of ₹ 7.35 crores, ₹ 2.75 crores have been paid by the accused to the complainant. It was also held that after receiving ₹ 3.25 crores, the complainant party was to help the accused party in getting the FIR quashed. It is also admitted that FIR has not been quashed so far. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the Court below held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
