Back
2011 (2) JLJ 375
S.K. Gangele and Sheel Nagu, JJ.
P.A.C.L. India Ltd.
Versus.
State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.3599 of 2011 (Gwalior);
Decided on : 22.7.2011.
Held : The petitioner-company has not placed all the facts before the Court rather it has concealed material facts in order to camouflage its activities. Primafacie, we are of the opinion, that the petitioner-company has played fraud with the Court, hence, the petitioner-company is not entitled any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is a discretionary and equitable relief.
(2008)12 SCC 481, (2007)8 SCC 449, (2003)9 SCC 401 and (2010)8 SCC 660 followed. [Paras 23 and 14 to 22]
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.144 -- scope of powers -- activities of petitioner-company -- against provisions of M.P Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 -- activities would create disturbances of grave character in society -- no illegality or irregularity in passing, order by District Magistrate. AIR 1961 SC 884 and AIR 1971 SC 2486 followed. AIR 1952 SC 16 and AIR 1978 SC 851 referred to.
[Paras 24 to 28.]
(3) Natural Justice -- proceedings under section 144 of Criminal P.C., 1973 -- notices were issued by District Magistrate and also by Station House Officer of Police to petitioner-company -- detailed information not furnished by petitioner-company -- It cannot be said that proper opportunity of hearing not afforded. [Para 29]
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.144--jurisdiction -- once order passed under this provision further time not extended -- again order passed by District Magistrate -- such subsequent order is without jurisdiction. AIR 1984 SC 51 followed. [Paras 33 to 34]
(5) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- scope of powers petition against order passed under section 144 of Criminal P.C., 1973 -suppression of material facts -- it amounts to playing fraud with the Court -- even order found contrary to law -- petitioner-company cannot be permitted to carry out its illegal activities -- interference not called for.
2008 AIR SCW 7923. AIR 1988 SC 04 and ( 1999)8 SCC 16 followed. [Paras 36 to 39]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && O;kfIr && ;kph&daiuh ds fdz;kdyki blds O;olk; ds foijhr && f‘kdk;r ij && naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 144 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ lafLFkr rFkk blds O;olk; dks fuf"k) djrs gq, vkns‘k ikfjr && ,sls vkns‘k ds fo:) ;kfpdk && ;kfpdk esa lkjoku~ rF;ksa dk fNiko && fjV ;kfpdk esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph&daiuh us U;k;ky; ds le{k leLr rF; ugha j[ks gSa cfYd vius fdz;kdykiksa dks Nn~eukoj.k ds vuqdze esa fNik;k gSA izFken`"V;k gekjk ;g vfHker gS fd ;kph&daiuh us U;k;ky; ds lkFk Ny&diV fd;k gS] blfy, ;kph&daiuh lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu fdlh lgk;rk dh gdnkj ugha gS] tks oSosdh; rFkk U;k;laxr lgk;rk gSA ¼2008½12 ,l lh lh 481] ¼2007½8 ,l lh lh 449] ¼2003½9 ,l lh lh 401 rFkk ¼2010½8 ,l lh lh 660 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 23 ,oa 14 ls 22½
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 144 && ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && ;kph && daiuh ds fdz;kdyki && e-iz- fu{ksidksa ds fgrksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2000 ds mica/kksa ds foijhr && fdz;kdyki lekt ds vkpj.k esa xaHkhj v‘kkafr l`ftr djsxk && ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk vkns‘k ikfjr djus esa dksbZ voS/krk vFkok vfu;ferrk ugha dh xbZA , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 884 rFkk , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 2486 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 16 rFkk , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 851 fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 24 ls 28½
¼3½ uSlfxZd U;k; && naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 144 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ && ;kph&daiuh dks ftyk eftLVªsV rFkk iqfyl Fkkuk vf/kdkjh }kjk lwpuk&i= tkjh fd, x, && ;kph&daiuh }kjk foLr`r tkudkjh izLrqr ugha dh xbZ && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj iznku ugha fd;k x;kA
¼iSjk 29½
¼4½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 144 && vf/kdkfjrk && bl mica/k ds v/khu ,d ckj vkns‘k ikfjr && vkxs le; ugha c<+k;k x;k && ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk iqu% vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k x;k && ,sls i‘pkr~orhZ vkns‘k vf/kdkfjrk jfgr gSA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 51 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 33 ls 34½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 144 ds v/khu ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo:) ;kfpdk && lkjoku rF;ksa dk fNiko && ;g U;k;ky; ds lkFk Ny&diV djus dh dksfV esa vkrk gS && vkns‘k Hkh fof/k ds izfrdwy ik, x, && ;kph&daiuh dks voS/k fdz;kdyki dk;kZfUor djus ds fy, vuqefr ugha nh tk ldrh && gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA 2008 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 7923] ,l vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 94 rFkk ¼1999½ 8 ,l lh lh 16 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 36 ls 39½
Gangele, J. -- 1. The question involved in this petition appears to be simple, that whether the District Magistrate has power and authority to pass an order under section 144 CrPC in regard to prohibiting the petitioner company to continue its business activities and seizure of office of the petitioner. After scanning the bulky documents and the facts of the case, we have gathered an impression that the present case is a classic example that by concealing material facts the petitioner-company wants to get relief on technicalities with intention to carryout illegal activities.
2. Petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act on 13.2.1996. The Company was allotted' an industrial activity code 082, which means Real Estate Activity vide a letter dated 6.4.1998 issued by the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India. As per pleadings of the petitioner it is a leading Real Estate Development Company with a multi-dimensional portfolio ranging from commercial to retail and residential segments. It also has a Customer Service Centre at 3rd Floor, Pan-Inn Plaza, Shinde-ki-Chhawani, Lashkar, Gwalior, M.P. The petitioner further pleaded that it has developed number of township and acquired tracks of land all over the country, using funds available with the company from promotors' contribution, inter accrual as well as working capital. The company receives applications from its customers for purchase and/or for development of land. As per the petitioner each business transaction between the company and customer is an independent agreement for purchase of land which is governed by a contract in writing and the customer pays consideration in full or instalments at the time of contract. The company has various types of payment plans, named as 'cash down payment plan'. The company further gives option to its customers of availing its services to develop the land or to arrange for its disposal in favour of third parties. The petitioner specifically stated that it does not hold any promise or any assurance of fixed returns to its customer at any stage of transaction.
3. The Reserve Bank of India had entered into correspondence with the Company for its activities. The Security and Exchange Board of India also enquired about the activities of the petitioner-company. As per the petitioner-company, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Delhi High Court, which was registered as C.W. No.335211998 in regard to activities of the petitioner-company. In the aforesaid litigation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Swamidurai, retired Judge of the Madras High Court, was appointed by the High Court to verify the genuineness of the agreements of the company in regard to sale of the land and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Swamidurai has held that the activities of the company were genuine. On the aforesaid basis another writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court was also dismissed.
4. Police Station Inderganj, Gwalior, issued a notice to the petitioner's Customer Service Centre at Gwalior and sought certain details from the company. Thereafter, on 3.9.2010 District Magistrate, Gwalior also issued a notice No.10373, Annexure P-7 to the petitioner-company. The District Magistrate mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner-company had been receiving deposits from investors with an assurance that they would get 3 to 4 times amount after certain period, hence, the activities of the company were in contravention to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2000'. The District Magistrate further observed that the company had not taken permission from the Reserve Bank of India for the aforesaid purpose. The District Magistrate sought various information’s from the petitioner-company including the details of all deposit received and names of the depositors, details of activities for which deposits had been made fr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
