N.V.RAMANA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI
Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Appellant
Versus
Nittin Johari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal challenges the grant of bail to Respondent No. 1 by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No. 1971/2019 in C.C. No. 770/2019, vide the order dated 14.08.2019.
3. The case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the commission of fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short “the Companies Act”), though several other offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have also been alleged. Briefly put, it is alleged that from FY 2009-10 to FY 2016-17, Brij Bhushan Singal and Neeraj Singal, promoters of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (for short “BSL”), assisted by employees and close associates, used a complex web of 157 companies to siphon off funds from BSL for various purposes, and also fraudulently availed of credit from various lender banks and manipulated the books of accounts and financial statements of BSL, causing wrongful loss to banks and financial institutions amounting to Rs. 20,879 crores and causing wrongful gain to the promoters and their family members, amounting to around Rs. 3500 crores.
Respondent No. 1 herein, Nittin Johari, who was the Chief Financial Office
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
State of Maharashtra v. Nainmal Punjaji Shah
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Government of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.