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

2018 Supreme(All) 67

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SHASHI KANT GUPTA AND RAJEEV MISRA, JJ.
UDAY BAHADUR AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 27407 of 2017, decided on 25th January, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Alok Ranjan Mishra, Raj Hans Pandey and Gopal S. Chaturvedi for the Petitioners; G.A., Aditi Tambi, Rajeev Sharma A.G.A., Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sudhashu Srivastava, Suresh Kumar Gupta and V.P. Srivastava for the Respondents.

Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – F.I.R. – Quashing for – Whether on account of pendency of arbitration proceedings between parties, impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed or not – Pendency of civil proceedings, criminal proceedings can be initiated – Question of fraud cannot be decided in arbitration proceedings. [Paras 26 to 30 and 33]

       Result; Petition Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.11.2017 lodged by the respondent No. 4 Mr. Oran Tsatsis, with the police of Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, resulting in Case Crime No. 3213 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B I.P.C.

2. We have heard Mr. Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Ranjan Mishra and Mr. Raj Hans Pandey, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava and Miss Aditi Tambi for the complainant-respondent and Mr. Rajeev Sharma, the learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

3. Brief facts, antecedent to the impugned F.I.R. dated 17.11.2017, are as follows :

4. The Government of India, in order to give boost to the economy recognized the necessity of having Foreign Direct Investment in different sectors. Accordingly, in consonance with the aforesaid, the Government of India issued Press Note 2 (2005) dated 3.3.2005 laying down the method and methodology regarding Foreign Direct Investment in Real Estate Sector.

5. In the light of the aforesaid, it appears that some deliberation took place in between the petitioner No. 1 Uday Bahadur and Messrs. Kopastin Holding Ltd., a company duly incorporated and registered under the laws of Cyprus for jointly undertaking the Real Estate Development Projects compliant with the above mentioned F.D.I. policy of the Government of India.

6. As a consequence of the aforesaid, a joint venture agreement dated 3.3.2008, in between Messrs. Kopastin Holding Ltd., on the one hand and Mr. Vijay Bahadur & Messrs. Indo Real Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., came to be entered into. The same is on the record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Consequently, a new company namely Messrs. Amireyaygan Indo Real Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., came into existence.

7. Messrs. Amireyaygan Indo Real Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 1 Uday Bahadur is a Director, the petitioner No. 2 Kumbashi Sri Niwasanirubha is an Additional Director, the petitioner No. 3 Mr. Ankit Gulati Ambey is also a Director and the petitioner No. 4 Mr. Sanjay Kumar is also a Director of the aforesaid Company.

8. The joint venture agreement dated 3.3.2008, is exhaustive in as much as it contains detailed provisions regarding the working of the joint venture agreement.

9. According to clause 3.3 of the joint venture agreement dated 3.3.2008, Messrs. Kopastin Holding Pvt. Ltd., was to initially invest a sum of 5 million U.S. Dollars, whereas Messrs. Amireyaygan Indo Real Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was to invest a sum of .5 million U.S. Dollars. It is not in dispute that the foreign investors invested a sum of Rs. 3.85 million U.S. Dollars. The investment, if any, made by the Indian Partner has been specified to have been made in the writ petition, but no document evidencing the same has been placed before us.

10. On 5.5.2008, the new entity Amireyaygan Indo Real. Pvt. Ltd., entered into a joint development agreement with Samia International Builders Pvt. Ltd., for joint development projects at Nistauli, Loni Road, Ghaziabad, U.P. in terms with the consortium agreement dated 28.4.2008 entered into with Air Force Naval Housing Board, (AFNHB) on profit sharing basis by jointly developing the said project in co-operation and association of each other.

11. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 Mr. Udai Bahadur on behalf of the new entity Messers. Amireyaygan Indo Real. Pvt. Ltd., purchased approximately 11 acres of land through SIBPL-AG at village Nistauli, Loni Road, District Ghaziabad, for the sale consideration of Rs. 102881089/-.

12. It is, further, alleged that on 24.12.2008, the Board of Directors of the new entity Messrs. Messers. Amireyaygan Indo Real. Pvt. Ltd., with the approval and co


































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top