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

2015 Supreme(Del) 944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

AMIT GUPTA - Petitioner
versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2396/2015
Decided on : 2.6.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.Geeta Luthra,. Mr.Nishant Datta & Ms.Naina Dubey, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr.Ravi Nayak, APP for the State along with SI Bhagwan Singh, PS EOW, in person.
Mr.M.S.Vinaik, Adv. with Mr.Sudhir Siwas & Mr.Deepak Kaushik, Advs. for complainant.

Imposition of bail conditions in commercial disputes with admitted liabilities and the allowance of alternative security for bail.

Headnote:

Bail - Imposition of Condition - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 185, Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the condition of depositing Rs.4 crores imposed for granting regular bail, arguing that the dispute was of a civil nature and the properties mortgaged were sufficient to secure the amount. The complainant alleged cheating and fraud by the petitioner and other directors, claiming over Rs.20.50 crore due, and opposed the petitioner's entitlement to relief.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the imposition of the bail condition was legally correct and sustainable, considering the admitted liability, commercial nature of the dispute, and the petitioner's previous bail application rejection. The court modified the bail condition to require furnishing security of immovable property instead of depositing Rs.4 crores.

Issues: Dispute over bail condition imposition, sufficiency of mortgaged properties, alleged cheating and fraud, petitioner's entitlement to relief, and modification of bail condition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while granting bail, imposing a deposit condition may be necessary in commercial disputes with admitted liabilities, and when the accused suggests abiding by any condition. The court also considered the petitioner's inability to arrange the amount and allowed furnishing security of immovable property as an alternative.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the bail condition was modified to require furnishing security of immovable property instead of depositing Rs.4 crores.

Judgment :

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.


1. The present petitioner has been filed by Amit Gupta for quashing of order dated 25th May, 2015 against imposition of condition of deposit of an amount of Rs.4 crores without prejudice to the rights and conditions of the parties while granting the regular bail to the petitioner.

2. It is argued by Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the condition imposed in the case to deposit Rs. 4 crore is unreasonable while granting the regular bail as charge sheet in the matter has been filed and the petitioner is otherwise entitled for bail. Counsel also argued that the dispute in the matter is of civil nature. The imposition of such condition should be declared as an arbitrary condition which is not sustainable in view of settled law. Learned Senior has referred many decisions in support of her argument.

3. Even otherwise on merit, it is argued by the Senior counsel that the petitioner is one of the directors in M/s Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. and in order to secure Rs.15 crores, the following movable and immovable properties are mortgaged. The details of the said properties are as follows :

i) Property situated at Dhabora Ehtmali Kashipur, Distt. U.S.N. admeasuring 50359.12 sq. mt. with a market value of Rs.125897800/-(Rupees Twelve Crore Fifty Eight Lac Ninety Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only). A copy of the valuation report dated 9th May, 2015 is filed. She has informed to the court that the value of this property as per the circle rate as on date i.e. 28th May, 2015 is Rs.8,05,74,400/- (Rupees Eight Crores Five Lacs Seventy Four Thousand only). The Notification dated 31st October, 2014 issued by the Collector, Uddam Singh Nagar is also filed.

ii) The petitioner has also pledged 2134900 shares to IFCI Factors Ltd. The total value of the shares pledged is Rs.69832579/- (Rupees Six Crore Ninety Eight Lacs Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine only). A certificate by a Chartered Account is also filed.

4. It is urged on behalf of petitioner that the detail of said moveable and immovable properties are sufficient in order to secure the amount of the complainant. Thus, there was no occasion to put the condition in the order which is contrary to the law. Short affidavit of Ms. Rashmi Gupta wife of the petitioner has also filed in Court.

5. Mr.M.S. Vinaik, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that when the directors of the company known as Shree Shyam Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. approached IFCI Factors Limited for grant of factoring facility, they produced a valuation of the properties which were to be kept as security for due repayment of their dues. At that point of time, a valuation report, prepared at the behest of the present petitioner and other persons in the management of the said company have specified the value of the property offered as mortgage, at approximately Rs. 3.5 crore.

6. The complainant company got the assets forming the security, valued by a leading valuation agency by the name of Hardicon Limited. According to this report, the distress sale value of the agricultural land provided as security is Rs.1.61 crore. In normal course, the value has been estimated at Rs. 2.01 crore. The amounts owing are as on 31st March, 2015 approximate sum of over Rs.20.50 crore (includes principal of Rs.14.97 crore and discount charges of Rs.5.53 crore). Counsel has challenged the validity of valuation report submitted on behalf of petitioner.

7. It is alleged that the petitioner has cheated the complainant company by presenting false invoices and forged and fabricated documentation in order to induce them to part with valuable funds. The petitioner has failed to refund the cheated amount. He alongwith other co-accused intent to defraud and cheat. The complainant company is a Government of India Undertaking in the business of factoring in order to promote genuine industry and entrepreneurship. The complainant company has been cheated and defrauded by t

































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 Back to top