9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nupam Bhargava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Advocate with Mr. Jay Upadhyay, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate Mr. Daksh Pareek, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. By these review petitions, the petitioners have prayed for review of order dated 12.02.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2031/2018 (M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others) and prayed for recalling/modifying of the aforesaid order. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to these review petitions are that M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. filed writ petition (No. 2031/2018) challenging action of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 against the petitioner-company. The petitioner therein challenged the search conducted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has no connection whatsoever with the affairs of the M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited and he had no role to play nor in any manner involved in any tax evasion allegedly committed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. According to the review petitioner, though on such allegations of he being involved in evasion of tax, he was arrested but later on, granted bail. An application for cancellation of bail was also rejected. He had filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court; Writ Petition (C) No. 9956/2017 was filed seeking declaration that the action of the officers of respondents therein against the review petitioner was arbitrary, malicious and motivated and search conducted in his residential premises were illegal and against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout hearing him, no observation or remark could be made against him. According to him, the review petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company and filed application on 11.09.2017 in Form 32/DIR-12 with the Registrar of Companies. Further submission is that the observation made in the order that review petitioner was the Managing Director of the company is not correct. On the date when the search was carried out on 27.08.2017, he was not present because he was taken away by the officers of the respondents and no inquiry has been made from the review petitioner with regard to the search carried out on 27.08.2017. His residential premises were searched on 26.08.2017 at Jaipur and he was taken away to Delhi. He was later on ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se that without any basis search was conducted and the Director of the petitioner-company and their family members were harassed. He would further submit that Division Bench has passed a detailed order and with reference to the specific material on record, it has been stated that some incriminating material has emerged from the record indicating involvement of the present petitioner. Therefore, the review petition is without any basis and deserves to be dismissed. 7. A perusal of the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2031/2018 and connected review petitions reveals that petition was filed by M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited through its Director Mr. Ajay Sharda inter alia with the prayer that ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax. Prima facie consideration of material on record was undertaken only to find out whether it is a case where search carried out and other proceedings could be said to be completely malicious, vexatious and without any material. It was observed that the Director of M/s. Sanwaria Sweets Private Limited Mr. Ajay Sharda is none other than the son of the present review petitioner. The assertion of the respondents that the review petitioner also happens to be the Director of the petitioner-company was taken into consideration. It was also taken into consideration that two writ petitions have already been filed and that search was conducted in the premises of the review petitioner. The fact that the review petitioner was arrested and then gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allegations that the search carried out in the business premises of the company and its Director and family members was vexatious, malicious and without any material whatsoever. What weight is required to be given to those materials would be a matter to be considered in various proceedings drawn by the Department and in other criminal proceedings. This Court only examined the material on record to find out whether the search carried out in the premises of the company could be said to be vexatious. On consideration of various material placed before the Court, the writ petition has been dismissed. 9. Therefore, no case for review is made out in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 113/2019. 10. In the other review petition filed by M/s. Sanwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
