Gimpex Private Limited vs Manoj Goel

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 605

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Gimpex Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Goel – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the parties: Mr. Karun Mehta, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR Ms. Ankita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., Adv. Ms. Sonali Jain, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Jain, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

A	Factual Background	3
B	Submissions of parties	12
C	Analysis	15
	C.1 Parallel prosecutions	15
	C.2 Liability arising from the settlement agreement	33
D	Conclusion	40

A Factual Background

1. This batch of appeals has arisen from a judgment dated 10 April 2019 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which proceedings in a complaint¹[CC No. 389 of 2017] under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881²[“NI Act”], pending on the file of the Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Chennai were quashed. The jurisdiction of the Single Judge was invoked under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973³[“CrPC”].

2. On 17 and 27 April 2012, the appellant entered into three High Seas Sale Agreements⁴[“HSSA”] with Aanchal Cement Limited⁵[“ACL”]. On the request of ACL, the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 6.96 crores (Rs. 6,96,74,666/-) as customs duty and Rs. 8.04 crores (Rs. 8,04,12,495/-) as wharfage charges in order to clear the goods on behalf of ACL which is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 605

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, B. V. NAGARATHNAGimpex Private Limited – AppellantVersusManoj Goel – Respondent

Cases Referred (11)

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Gimpex Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Goel – Respondent