ORDER

% 24.01.2024 CRL.M.A. 2272/2024 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 556/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2271/2024 (stay)

3. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint case being CC No.11431/2017 titled ‘TIFAC v. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. & Ors.’, pending before learned MM (NI Act)-03/NDD/PHC/New Delhi.

4. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Glass Reinforced Polymer pipes, rail forced plastic, ERP Pipe fittings etc. having its registered office in Chennai and Petitioner No. 2 is the Director of Petitioner No. 1. Respondent is a registered society under CRL.M.C. 556/2024 Page 2 of 5 the Department of Science & Technology which assesses the state of art technology and sets directions for future technological developments in India and in important socio-economic sectors. Petitioner company entered into Technology Development Assistance Agreement (‘TDA Agreement’) dated 22.12.1999 with the Respondent for the project titled ‘Design and Development of Composite Refill Cylinder for Compressed Natural Gas’. In lieu of the TDA Agreement, a project proposal was made by the Petitioner No. 1 Company in collaboration with Department of National Aeronautical Engineering, Madras Institute of Technology. The estimated cost of the project was Rs.5,78,00,000/- out of which Respondent was to contribute Rs.2,80,00,000/-, and Petitioner Company was to contribute Rs.2,98,00,000/-. Petitioner Company was expected to pay back the Respondent the committed amount plus an additional amount of Rs.56,00,000/-. On 22.12.1999, a deed of hypothecation was executed and all moveables including stocks were hypothecated to the Respondent.

Respondent disbursed Rs.2,80,00,000/- to the Petitioner Company for the projects by UBI cheques.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner Company as argued by the learned Senior Counsel that after the Respondent paid Rs.1,85,000/- for procurement of the 3-Axis Filament Winding Machine. Petitioner Company placed an order for procurement on M/s. Entech USA. Due to reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner Company, the machine was taken back by the US Custom Authorities, due to sanctions on India imposed by the US Government as a result of the Pokhran Nuclear test. Petitioner Company had to pursue litigation in the US Court and after a prolonged battle, the machine was finally released in August, 2003. However, only a 2-Axis Filament CRL.M.C. 556/2024 Page 3 of 5 Winding Machine was received by the Petitioner Company and the project could not be successfully completed. In good faith and in bona fide interest, Petitioner Company issued 12 post-dated cheques on the assurance of the Respondent that the same would only be for audit records and will not be presented for seeking payment, however, the Respondent with mala fide intention presented the cheques, which were returned along with return memos by the Bank. The dispute was referred to arbitration on 24.09.2008 where Respondent filed a claim of Rs.3,36,00,000/- along with interest and finally, an award was passed on 14.12.2019 where the Arbitrator held inter alia that the Petitioner Company need not contribute funds to the Respondent as per TDA Agreement, however, it is logical that Respondent recovers a part of the investment on the project by selling/auctioning the plant and machineries acquired under the project and distributing the proceeds as per the TDA and hypothecation agreements. The award has been challenged by the Petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court in O.M.P. (COMM.) 128/2021 and is pending.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that there is no legally enforceable