SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam & M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI - APPELLANT
VERSUS
K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.__4540________OF 2013
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13120 OF 2013]
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI - APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANOTHER - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 736-737 __________OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.3273-3274 OF 2013)
K.C. PALANISAMY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANOTHER ETC. ETC. - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 731-733 __________OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1924-1926 OF 2013)
K.C. PALANISAMY - APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAMASWAMY ATHAPPAN & OTHERS ETC. ETC. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4537-4538 __________OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.11342-11343 OF 2013)
PAUL RIVETT - APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANOTHER - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 734-735 __________OF 2013
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.1947-1948 OF 2013)
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI - PETITIONER
VERSUS
V. BALAKRISHNAN & ANR. - RESPONDENTS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 166 OF 2013
IN
S.L.P.(CRL.) NO. 9853 OF 2010
Decided On : May 09, 2013.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Companies Act - Sections 397 and 398 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B,409, 420, 405, 471 and 389 - NI Act - Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 203 – Offence of cheating - Constructing and developing hotel property - CPL and VML have immovable assets respondent transferred shares of CPL and VML to CEPL instead of bringing money and got share holding in CEPL - Respondent is alleged to have swindled that was deposited in bank account contrary to JVA and transferred immovable assets of CPL and VML subsidiaries of CEPL - ORE filed Company Petition Company Law Board Additional Principal Bench Chennai account of alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement indulged in by respondent Company Law Board by order directed respondent CG Holdings Private Limited and CEPL to return investment of ORE amounting interest within one year – Held, Respondent then moved complaint before Judicial Magistrate Perundurai for initiating criminal action against appellant for breach of contract which was dismissed by Magistrate holding same as nothing but to take vengeance - Magistrate further that conditions of agreement are violated respondent has to remedy Contract Act or Company Law instead of filing criminal case - Suppressing complaint and order passed by Magistrate respondent tried again by filing complaint before Judicial Magistrate for initiating criminal action against appellants for breach of contract and conspiracy - Although FIR was registered but closure report as mistake of fact was prepared - High Court while passing order observed that Court would frown upon conduct of complainant in indulging in repeated harassment of petitioners appellants - Criminal proceedings arising to continue would be an abuse of process of Court and for ends of justice such proceedings ought to be quashed - High Court failed to look into this aspect of matter while passing impugned order in our opinion same could not be sustained in law - Petition disposed
JUDGMENT
M.Y. EQBAL, J.:
Leave granted.
2. Since common questions of law are involved, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the factual matrix giving rise to these cases as alleged in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13120 of 2013 is set out hereinafter.
3. The appellant – Chandran Ratnaswami, alleged to have settled in Canada since 1974, is an officer of Hamblin Watsa Investment Counsel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited (in short, “Fairfax”) which is based in Canada and has also made investments in India worth more than USD 1 billion. The said appellant is also a Director on the Boards of various renowned companies including ORE Holdings Limited (in short, “ORE”), a Fairfax Group company, based in Mauritius, and has to travel to India on business commitments. The said holding company, ORE on 30th January, 2004 entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with CG Holdings Private Limited (respondent No. 1 – K.C. Palanisamy’s company) and N. Athappan (a Singapore citizen) for constructing and developing a hotel property, a shopping complex and an IT Park of the properties owned by Cherraan Properties Limited (CPL) and Vasantha Mills Limited (VML) (respondent No.1’s companies). ORE invested Rs.75 crores and got 45% in Cheran Enterprises Private Limited (CEPL). N. Athappan invested Rs. 4 crores and got 10% in CEPL. It is alleged that as CPL and VML have immovable assets, respondent No. 1 transferred shares of CPL and VML to CEPL instead of bringing money and got 45% share holding in CEPL. Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have swindled the said Rs. 75 crores that was deposited in the bank account contrary to the JVA and transferred the immovable assets of CPL and VML, subsidiaries of CEPL. Thereupon, ORE filed Company Petition No. 76 of 2005 before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai (in short, “the CLB”) on account of the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement indulged in by respondent No. 1. The Company Law Board by order dated 13th August, 2008 directed respondent No. 1, CG Holdings Private Limited and CEPL to return the investment of ORE and N. Athappan amounting to Rs. 79 crores with 8% interest within one year, failing which the land of VML was to be transferred to ORE and N. Athappan. It was directed that once the aforementioned amount is paid, respondent No. 1 would take control of CEPL and its subsidiaries. The Company Law Board held as under:
“17. In view of the foregoing conclusions and in exercise of the powers under Sections 397 & 398 read with Section 402 and with a view to bringing to an end the grievances of CG Holdings, KCP, ORE and Athappan, the following order is passed:
CEPL shall return a sum of Rs. 75 crores and Rs. 4 crores invested by ORE and Athappan respectively, together with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of investment till the date of repayment within a period of 12 months in one or more instalments, commencing from 01.11.2008. While making the payment CEPL, CG Holdings and KCP shall ensure that at least 25% of the amount due is paid in every quarter. CEPL CG Holdings and KCP are at liberty to make use of the fixed deposit held by CEPL with the SBI, Erode Main Branch, free of any liens or encumbrances towards refund of the investments of ORE and Athappan. VML shall not alienate or sell any of its immoveable properties till full payment is made to ORE, in terms of this order. In the event of any failure to make the repayment within the specified time, CEPL CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the immovable properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land in favour of ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of Athappan by executing and registering necessary deeds of conveyance in strict compliance with all applicable laws, as consideration for reduction of capital and surrender of the shares of ORE and Athappan, upon which O
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.