BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED vs ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 562

R.BANUMATHI, R.SUBHASH REDDY
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Advocate, Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Advocate, Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Debol Banarjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manish Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Advocate, Mrs. Shally Bhasin, Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Advocate, Ms. Sayareee Basu Malik, Advocate, Ms. Madhavi Agrwal, Advocate, Ms. Surabhi Limaye, Advocate, Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Soumya Joykaran Singh, Advocate, Mr. Chaitanya Safaya, Advocate, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocate, M/S. Fox Mandal & Co., Advocate, Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Bhargav, Advocate, Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Advocate and Mr. Mithun Shashank, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

R. Banumathi. J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 323 of 2011 in and by which the High Court quashed the complaint of the appellant-Company filed under Sections 379, 403 and 411 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC qua documents No. 1 to 28 of the Schedule. Insofar as documents No. 29 to 54 of the Schedule, the High Court remitted the matter to the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

3. Being aggrieved by quashing of the complaint qua documents No. 1 to 28, the appellant-complainant has preferred appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 9053 of 2016). Being aggrieved by remitting the matter to the trial court qua documents No. 29 to 54, the respondents have filed appeal [SLP(CrL) D No. 6405 of 2019 and SLP(CrL) D. No. 6122 of 2019]. Though the SLPs by the respondents are filed with delay, in the interest of justice, delay in filing the SLPs are condoned.

4. These appeals arise out of the criminal complaint filed by the appellant-Company which belong to Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) Group, now under the control of respondent No. 17-Harshvardhan Lodha who is the son of Rajendra Singh Lodh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 562

R.BANUMATHI, R.SUBHASH REDDYBIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED – AppellantVersusADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS – Respondent

Cases Referred (18)

R.BANUMATHI, R.SUBHASH REDDY
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS – Respondent