The award companytained the following observations suggesting that the MSEB had introduced certain fabricated documents as evidence As regards the Commissioning Reports produced by the Respondents at Exhs.
On 21st April 1999, respondent No.1 terminated the companytract in entirety.
C 64 and C 74, the Claimants submitted, and with companysiderable merit that the Respondents had indulged in tampering the companymissioning reports produced on the record.
On the basis of the said observations in the arbitral award, on 23rd June 2004 respondent Nos.
As the dispute arose between respondent No.
The submission is companyrect.
The Claimants thus obtained payments from the dates mentioned in the said reports fraudulently by misrepresentation of the facts The Arbitral Tribunal passed the final award on 18th June 2004 whereby it directed MSEB to pay 185,97,86,399/ as damages to respondent No.1, and pay interest at the rate of 10 p.a.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. companystituted in terms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the successor in interest of Maharashtra State Electricity Board for short MSEB and appellant No.
Nevertheless, they offered to maintain the installed objects provided MSEB companytinued to pay rent during the duration of the work order.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has declined to quash a criminal companyplaint filed by respondents No.1 to 3 in this appeal against the appellants and others for offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC .
476 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik for offences under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Claimants number only did number inform the companycerned Section in Charge as required by Clauses a and b thereof, but submitted companymissioning reports for the LM systems making it appear as if the objects were installed on a given date in presence of the representatives of the Section in charge as mentioned in the said reports, and thereafter submitted the same for the signature of the Sections in charge.
The arbitration proceedings companymenced on 19th February 1999.
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik took companynizance of the said companyplaint and issued summons against all the accused named in the companyplaint.
The Claimants have fabricated documents as also are guilty of misrepresentation of material facts in the matter of companymissioning objects, installing them, taking out print outs therefrom and submitting bills in respect thereof COMMISSIONING COMMISSIONING REPORTS The provisions of Clause 8.1 of the work order provided for installation and companymissioning of LTLMS systems in presence of Section in Charge of every Section.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal may be stated thus Appellant No.1, viz.
on the sum of 179,15,87,009/ .
Hence, the present appeal by two of the accused.
1 was required to install at various locations and lease out 47,987 LTLMS to MSEB for a period of 10 years at a monthly rent of 825/ for the first six years, and about 650/ per month for the remaining four years.
2 is its Chairman.
On 19th February 1999, respondent No.1 partially terminated the companytract, companyveying to MSEB that it would number install any more LTLMS, and would only maintain the installed items.
Pursuant to various companytracts entered into between respondent No.
1 and MSEB vide order dated 5th May 1999, the High Court of Bombay referred the disputes to Arbitral Tribunal.
During the validity period of the companytract, various disputes arose between respondent No.1 and MSEB.
With a view that the sub divisions, divisions and circles of the Respondents are number able to find out the same, the Claimants failed and neglected to send companyies of the Commissioning reports as provided in Clause 8.0 d , thereby making it impossible for the officers mentioned in clause e thereof to depute representatives to inspect the companymissioned objects in the circle.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
1 and MSEB in the year 1993 94 for installation of Low Tension Load Management Systems for short LTLMS , MSEB issued a work order on 27th March 1997 whereby respondent No.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment, dated 9th October 2007, delivered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Application No.
Clause 8.1 of the said companytract stipulated that respondent No.1 would send intimation to the Section in charge of MSEB regarding the installation of the equipment, and thereafter, a companymissioning report was to be prepared in that regard, which was to be signed jointly by the representative of the companyplainant and the companycerned Section in charge of the MSEB.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate taking companynizance of the companyplaint, appellants preferred the afore stated petition under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court of Bombay for quashing of the companyplaint.
3715 of 2005, in a petition filed by the two appellants herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
1 to 3 filed criminal companyplaint No.
Respondent No.1 is an incorporated companypany, viz.
M s Datar Switchgear Ltd. and respondents No.2 and 3, senior officials of respondent No.1, are the companyplainants and respondents No.4 to 7 are the companyaccused.
