There is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, but the question whether in any particular case, a departmental proceeding is to be stayed till disposal of the criminal case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances obtaining in the particular case.

( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated the 12th July, 1989 passed by U. C. Banerjee,j. in suit No. 747 of 1988, by which the learned Judge stayed the said suit and all proceedings thereunder till the final disposal of the complaint case No. 1233 of 1988 and 1488 of 1988 including the Park Street Police Station case No. 455 dated, the 27th July, 1988. The plaintiff company (the appellant herein) filed the said suit on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (that is, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein) jointly carried on business as share and stock brokers and that, during the period April, 1984 to April 1985 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,00,000 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of acquiring shares in various companies and with specific instructions to do so including 3,51,300 shares of the defendant No. 3 (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) of the value of Rs. 1,39,34,513 to be purchased in the name of plaintiff or its nominee. It was also the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the said 3,51,300 shares in the Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for and on behalf of the plaintiff with the money provided or the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by the plaintiff for the said purpose, but the said defendants however delivered only 1,75,000 shares in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. to the plaintiff and refused and neglected to deliver the balance 1,76,300 shares. In the suit the plaintiff therefore prayed for specific delivery of the said 1,76,300 shares in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 along with appropriate documents as might be required for the registration of the said shares in the name of the plaintiff, with certain incidental reliefs. The plaintiff also alternatively prayed for a decree of Rs. 1. 06,00,000 as the value of the said shares along with interest thereon. The plaintiff also filed a separate application in the said suit for appointment of receiver. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 then filed in the said suit an application for staying the suit and all proceedings thereunder on the ground that the plaintiff earlier filed through its employee two petitions of complaint under section 156 (3) Cr PC covering the self-same matter on the basis of which the police started the Park Street P. S. Case No. 455 dated the 27th July, 1988 under section 409/34, Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) IN the first petition of complaint filed an behalf of the appellant company, M/s. Apeejay (P) Ltd. it is stated that the company through its associate companies entrusted to the accused persons (who are the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2) a sum of Rs. 1,98,00,000 with instruction to purchase various shares on behalf of the appellant company and that, the company was made to understand by the accused persons that they had purchased different shares for the appellant company, as per direction valued at Rs. 1,97. 48. 354 and further that, out of the shares in different companies purchased by the accused persons, certain shares were sold by the accused person as per the instruction of the appellant company and they deposited in favour of the appellant company only certain amount out of the said sale-proceeds leaving a balance of Rs. 63,93,605 but inspite of repeated assurance the accused persons did not make over the said sale proceeds to the appellant company and thus committed the offence punishable under section 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said petition of complaint although the purchase of equity shares in EID Parry Limited and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. was mentioned, yet it was stated therein that separate criminal proceedings in respect of the same would be started against the accused persons, in due course. The second petition of complaint filed on behalf of the appellant company under section 409/34 IPC was in respect of the shares of the said two companies, namely, EID Parry Ltd. and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in the