TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt equally as agreed by and between them and it further contains a stipulation that in default of the payment by either of them as per their agreed share in the settlement, they shall be held liable and prosecuted as per law. The settlement between the two directors i.e. the appellant and the intervenor is inter se these two only and the complainant is not bound by the same. Complainant s agreement or consent was only to the extent of accepting Rs. 4,63,50,000/- only. He was not a signatory to the agreement which was signed by the two parties. Admittedly, both the appellant and the intervenor were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the company AGPL and, therefore, were convicted by the Trial Court and their conviction was affirmed by the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his bail and suspension of sentence. This decision, reflecting the frustration of the legal system with repeated non-compliance, sets the stage for our deliberation. 3. Leave granted. 4. The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant as also the intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) vide order dated 03.07.2018 as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court on 03.07.2018 and recorded in the order of even date and further violated the condition contained in paragraph 3 of the order dated 20.03.2019 granting extension of time to comply. 5. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals jointly filed by the appellant, the intervenor as also AGPL were dismissed by the Sessions Court vide common judgment and order dated 30.01.2014. The Sessions Court granted a month s time to surrender in order to undergo the sentence. 7. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred three revisions before the High Court as originally there were three complaints. Before the High Court the appellant and the intervenor filed an undertaking based on a settlement on 03.07.2018 according to which it was agreed that a total sum of Rs. 4,63,50,000/- would be paid to the complainant-respondent no.2. Out of the said amount Rs. 73,50,000/- had already been paid before the appeal Court. As such, the remaining amount of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- was to be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r payment of Rs. 1,69,10,000/- till 20th April, 2019 and further provided that if the said amount was not paid then the order granting bail and also suspending the sentence shall stand cancelled forthwith without further reference to Court. 10. Thereafter it appears that the present appellant Satish P.Bhatt filed a criminal application in the pending revision on 16th April, 2019 stating that he had paid his share of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- being 50% of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- as mentioned in the order dated 3rd July, 2018 and, therefore, he may be absolved of the charges and acquitted. On the said application, notice was issued to the complainant on 19th June, 2019 fixing 10th July, 2019. On that date, it was adjourned to 16th July, 2019. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 73,50,000 had been paid by him alone prior to 03.07.2018 during the time when the appeal was pending before the Sessions Court and, therefore, he was entitled to adjustment of the said amount. Further his case is that out of the settled amount to be paid to the complainant i.e. Rs. 4,63,50,000/- his share being 40%, the amount liable to be paid by him would be Rs. 1,85,00,000/-. As he had paid Rs. 73,50,000 earlier he was liable to pay a further amount of Rs. 1,11,90,000/-. According to him, he has paid the said amount of Rs. 1,11,90,000/- after the order dated 03.07.2018. The outstanding amount of Rs. 83,10,000/- falls in the share of the appellant whose total liability being 60% of the settled amount would come to Rs. 2,78,10,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to receive a total amount of Rs. 4,63,50,000/-. The undertaking as also the order dated 03.07.2018 clearly mention that both of them will pay the amount equally as agreed by and between them and it further contains a stipulation that in default of the payment by either of them as per their agreed share in the settlement, they shall be held liable and prosecuted as per law. 16. The settlement between the two directors i.e. the appellant and the intervenor is inter se these two only and the complainant is not bound by the same. Complainant s agreement or consent was only to the extent of accepting Rs. 4,63,50,000/- only. He was not a signatory to the agreement which was signed by the two parties. Admittedly, both the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
