IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Texmaco Rail And Engineering Ltd. & Ors.- Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondent
WPCR No. 463 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 225 and 227 - Stamp Act - Article 5 © of Schedule 1 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406, 415, 420 read with Section 34 - Transfer of Property Act - Section 54 - Registration Act - Sections 17 & 18 - PC Act - Section 13(1)(e) - Criminal Procedur Code,1973 - Sections 482, 155(2) , 156(1) , 439 and 482 - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 4(42C) - Cheating and dishonesty – Criminal Breach of trust - Petitioner No.1 is a Chairman of the Adventz Group and other petitioners are Senior Executives of Company - There was a business transfer agreement between petitioners’ company and Simplex Casting Limited which was filed as Annexure P/2 along with writ petition. BTA has various clauses which provide manner, procedure to be followed for execution of BTA, purchase and its consideration. Clause 3 of BTA provides purchase - Consideration for the sale and transfer of the undertaking as a going concern basis shall be a lump sum amount net of working capital utilisation of which shall stand transferred to the purchaser along with the undertaking with condition that there shall be positive net current assets as per sanction terms of the working capital lenders to justify such working capital limits - Held, High Court under the Constitution is a forum for enforcement of fundamental right of a citizen it cannot be denied the power to entertain a petition by a citizen claiming that State machinery was abusing its power and was acting in violation of the constitutional guarantee. Rather it has a constitutional duty and responsibility to ensure that State machinery was acting fairly and not on extraneous considerations - High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 in extreme cases - What are such extreme cases cannot be put in a strait- jacket. But the few on which there can be hardly any dispute are if High Court is of opinion that proceedings under TADA were an abuse of process of court or taken for extraneous considerations or there was no material on record that a case under TADA was made out - between parties offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners - In view of the above discussions, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court - Writ Petition (Cr.) is allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the registration of First Information Report bearing No. 359 of 2021 (Annexure P/1) lodged by respondent No.4 who is the Managing Director of Simplex Casting Limited at Police Station Supela, District Durg (CG) against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the writ petition are that the petitioner No.1 is a Chairman of the Adventz Group and other petitioners are the Senior Executives of the Company. There was a business transfer agreement (for short, “BTA”) between the petitioners’ company and Simplex Casting Limited which was filed as Annexure P/2 along with the writ petition. BTA has various clauses which provide the manner, procedure to be followed for execution of BTA, purchase and its consideration. Clause 3 of BTA provides purchase consideration which reads as under:-
3.2 Such Purchase consideration shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller in the following manner: (1) INR 25,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees twenty five crore only) shall be paid to the seller by the purchaser in the following manner.
(a) INR 11,55,00,000/-Indian Rupees Eleven Crore Fifty lac only) payable on the effective date by way of electronic transfer/NEFT/RTGS in favour of Bank of Baroda, Emerging Corporate Bank, Pandry, Raipur.
(b) INR 5,50,00,000 (Indian Rupees Five crore fifty lac only) payable on “April 20, 2019, by way of a cheque drawn in favour of The State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur.
(c) (i) INR 1,89,00,000 (Indian Rupees One crore eighty-nine lac only) payable on April 29, 2019;
(ii) INR 1,89,00,000 (Indian Rupees One crore eighty-nine lac only) payable on May 4, 2019.
(iii) INR 1,89,00,000 (Indian Rupees One crore eighty-nine lac only) payable on May 10, 2019;
by way of cheques drawn in favour of the seller towards the consideration payable by the seller to Melbrow, represented by the seller to be its full and final settlement amount against termination of Page 4 of 30 the working agreement dated March 25, 2019, entered into by and between the seller and Malbrow, pursuant to which Melbrow shall have no claim of whatsoever nature, neither against the Undertaking, nor against the Purchaser; and
(d) INR 2,28,00,000 (Indian Rupees two crore twenty eight lac only) payable on April 30, 2019 by way of a cheque drawn in favour of the Seller.
(ii) INR 24,00,00,000/- (Indian Rupees twenty four crore only) shall be paid to the Seller by the Purchaser on or before June 15 2019, subject to satisfactory completion of the Diligence Exercise by the Purchaser and such adjustments as may be determined by the Purchaser pursuant to such Diligence Exercise (“Deferred Consideration”); and
(iii) INR 8,50,00,000 (Indian Rupees Eight crore fifty lac only) by way of transfer of the term loan from the bank(s)/lender(s) of the Seller (in respect of which loan such lenders hold an executive charge over the assets of the Undertaking) to the name of the Purchaser being a liability that pertains/relates to the Undertaking. The parties shall make their best efforts to get such term loan transferred in favour of purchaser as soon as practicable.
3.3 Parties agree that the purchase consideration has been determined basis the Management Certified Financial Statement, and is subject to a
State of AP vs. Golconda Linga Swamy
State of Kerala vs. O.C. Kuttan
State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand
Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar
Indiazn Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd
Anwar Chand Sab nanadikar vs. State of Karnataka
Kirender Sarkar vs. State of Assam
Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Vesa Holding (P) Ltd., vs. State of Kerala
B. Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee
Suresh vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Anil Mazhajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd.
Y.V. Jose vs. State of Gujarat
S.W. Palantikar and others vs. State of Bihar and another
Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and another
State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar
Lalit Kumari vs. Government of UP and others
State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and another
S.K. Alagh vs. State of UP and others
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy and another vs. Sudha Seetaram and another
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Varma and others vs. State of Bihar and another
Sri Krishna Agencies vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
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.