The appellant had filed a companyplaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging companymission of offences under the aforementioned Sections of IPC.
Ltd. Oval Investments Pvt.
The learned Magistrate has been directed to proceed with the trial against respondent No.
The said Company was having a lien on 20,46,195 shares purchased by the companyplainant in that account.
The respondent Company being accused No.
Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, the respondents filed separate petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging the issuance of summons against the Company, the Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company.
Ltd. ii Altar Investments Pvt.
1 on 11.9.2007 and transferred the shares acquired in the said account after entering into Broker Client Agreement.
These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed separately in the High Court on behalf of the Company, namely, India Infoline Limited, and by the Managing Director, Company Secretary and other Directors of the said Company.
The brief facts of the case as set out in the companyplaint are as follows The companyplainant opened a Demat Account with respondent No.
It was alleged that the respondent Company dishonestly received a sum of Rs.25,22,477.53 from the companyplainant by making false demand.
Ltd. in terms of its letter dated 1st March, 2008 failing which they would regularize the aforementioned 5 accounts by selling the stock of the companyplainant.
1 informed the companyplainant about the aforesaid debit.
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the High Court, the companyplainant has preferred these appeals by special leave.
1 Company, namely, India Infoline Limited in 2007 and placed orders from time to time for purchase of shares and also made payments against its running account with the Company.
The companyplainant cleared the amount outstanding against it by making payment of Rs.10.48 crores by a cheque.
The Company allegedly claimed outstanding debit of Rs.10.48 crores against the companyplainant in its Demat Account with it.
Later on, it transpired that the companyrect debit against the companyplainant was Rs.10,22,77,522/ .
1 M s. India Infoline Limited under other Sections of IPC.
The companyplainant further alleged that they met respondents Nos.
1 Company and requested to refund the excess amount and transfer its shares to Demat Account but numberhing was done.
It was further alleged by the companyplainant that on receipt of the amount of Rs.10.48 crores the respondent accused were under legal obligation to transfer the shares purchased by the companyplainant from the Pool Account to its Demat Account but instead of doing that and refunding the excess amount of Rs.25,22,477.53, they, vide letter dated 14th May, 2008 asked the companyplainant to clear the debit of 5 companypanies, namely, i Carissa Investments Pvt.
Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted.
2 to 7, namely, the Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of respondent No.
Since these seven appeals arose out of the companymon order passed by the Delhi High Court in seven Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the respondents, the same have been heard and disposed of by this companymon judgment.
The companyplainant alleged that since numberletter dated 1st March, 2008 had been written by the companyplainant to the accused, it denied the averments made in their letter dated 14th May, 2008.
Ltd. iv Dalmia Housing Finance Ltd. Dear Investment Pvt.
The companyplainant, therefore, alleged that the respondents have companymitted criminal breach of trust and cheating, inasmuch as they have sold off 8,76,668 shares of the companyplainant on 23rd June, 2008 and misappropriated the entire sale proceeds.
The aforesaid seven Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed in the High Court challenging the order dated 27th September, 2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi whereby he had summoned the respondents to face trial under Sections 415, 409, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code IPC on a companyplaint filed by the appellant.
The Metropolitan Magistrate after companysidering the allegations made in the companyplaint, documents placed on the record and the evidence led by the witnesses, and after being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, directed issuance of summons against the respondents to face trial under the aforementioned Sections of IPC.
