TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences by the Trial Court. It is also important to note that the said Dharmesh Doshi , who has been discharged of the alleged crime, was never an employee/share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company - Since the said Dharmesh Doshi was in no way connected to the appellant company herein, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company. In such a circumstance, wherein the appellant company and the accused Dharmesh Doshi are two separate entities, and the appellant company is in no way connected to the concerned Investigation, the operation of the freeze order against the appellant company, is not legally tenable - Since the appellant company is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, Adv. Mr. Chithransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nain, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. M/s. K J John And Co, AOR JUDGMENT KRISHNA MURARI, J. Leave Granted. 2. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as High Court ) in Criminal Application No. 602 of 2013. FACTS 3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are that the appellant company is a Foreign Institutional Investor and was permitted by Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI ) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antee. 6. The issue posed in front of us therefore is limited to the second freeze order. The second freeze order, which was passed by the respondent herein on 17.08.2010, had incapacitated the appellant company herein to repatriate an amount of Rs. 38.52 crores, which was realized in favour of the appellant company herein pursuant to an order passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal dated 08.05.2006. 7. Aggrieved, the appellant company had approached this Court for relief, and vide order dated 12.10.2011, this Court gave liberty to the appellant company to approach the Trial Court for release of the said amount. 8. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court, after duly taking notice of the fact that this Court had allowed the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ischarged of the alleged crime, was never an employee/share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company. 13. Since the said Dharmesh Doshi was in no way connected to the appellant company herein, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company. 14. In such a circumstance, wherein the appellant company and the accused Dharmesh Doshi are two separate entities, and the appellant company is in no way connected to the concerned Investigation, the operation of the freeze order against the appellant company, is not legally tenable. 15. Further, It must also be noted that the appellant company herein, till date, has not been named in the FIR or the charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
