SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 1498

MANMOHAN
Rohan Mehta – Appellant
Versus
V. K. Sharma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ramesh Babu, with Ms. Swati Setia, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rajiv Bahl & Manish K. Bishnoi, Adv. for Official Liquidator. Vikas Singh, Sr.Adv. with Shailendra Singh & Yashpal Singh, V.K. Sharma, ex-Director along with Ms. Seema Singh Malhotra, authorised rep. Ramesh Babu, with Ms. Swati Setia, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, R3 - C. Mohan Rao with Lokesh Kr. Sharma, R16 - Nitin Sharma, Adv. for Vimal Joshi. M. Srinivas R. Rao, K. Parameshwar, K. Madhava Reddy, Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. with J.S. Bakshi & R12 - Salim A. Inamdar, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. in applicant. Abhay Kumar & Rupesh Kr. Pandey, Ashish Deep Verma, Rajkumar Sharawat, Devender Prasad Garud M.V., A.K. Singh, Karong Victor Kom, Adv. for Anju Jain, Advocates.

Judgment :-

MANMOHAN, J.

1. At the outset, Mr. N.K. Bhola states that a typographical error has crept in the order dated 30th April, 2012 inasmuch as the direction for attachment of personal bank account of Mr. Satinder Dutta, brother-in-law of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, should be to the extent of 4 lakhs instead of Rs. 3.40 lacs. Accordingly, para 39 of order dated 30th April, 2012 stands corrected as under:-

“39.Since the SFIO in its report has stated that Flat No.38, second floor, Jeevan Anand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Pitam Pura, New Delhi was purchased out of the funds of JVG Finance Limited and the said property had been fraudulently sold by Mr. Satinder Dutta, brother-in-law of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and the sale proceeds had not been deposited with the JVG Finance Limited, the personal bank account of Mr. Satinder Dutta is attached to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs with compound interest @ 12% per annum.”

1. From a perusal of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short “SFIO”) report, it transpires that it has not examined the transactions executed by the company in liquidation with regard to the Hyderabad properties. Consequently, the SFIO team which had earlier i






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top