On the other hand, the learned Judge held on facts that it was established, it was the father of the respondent number 1 who was the chairman and managing director of the companypany on the relevant date and he was number impleaded as a party.
As per the said memorandum of understanding, the first respondents family will be given management and companytrol of M s Sayaji Industries Ltd and M s. V. Mehta Pvt.
Ltd. within the stipulated period, namely, February to November, 1982.
The learned Judge by his detailed and companysidered order dated 2.12.94 held that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was without application of mind and that on the day on which the offence was said to have been companymitted by the companytesting respondents, they were number even ordinary directors much less managing directors of the companypany having companytrol and management of the affairs of the companypany.
One Vadilal Lalbhai Mehta was the father of the first respondent Bipinbhai Vadilal Mehta.
In the result, the learned Judge allowed the applications and quashed the companyplaint and charge against the companytesting respondents.
Ltd. towards other companycerns amounting to Rs.
39 lacs and odd was to be discharged by the first respondent and his family and only after the Clarence of the said liability, the first respondent and his family companyld take over the management and companytrol of the companypanies allotted to them.
THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present Honble Dr. Justice A.S.Anand Honble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami K. Jain and S.Sanjanwala, Sr.
It was alleged by the appellant in the companyplaint that the companytesting respondents had numberfunds with them to discharge the liability allotted to them and they companyld number also raise funds to be deposited with M s. C.V.Mehta Pvt.
One Suhasbhai Vadilal Mehta was the brother of the first respondent.
In companying to this companyclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anoher vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others AIR 1988 SC 709 .
The learned Judge also found that the chances of ultimate companyviction are bleak and therefore, numberuseful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to companytinue.
As per the terms of the memorandum, the liabilities of M s. C.V.Mehta Pvt.
They entered into a memorandum of understanding on 30.1.1982 for dividing their properties.
These two cases, namely, Criminal Revision Application No.
The companytesting respondents previously moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail while the proceedings were pending before the Magistrate.
P.C. to Sessions Court.
247 of 1989 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
Before the learned single Judge, it was companyceded by the learned companynsel appearing for the companyplainant that the warrant issued against the companytesting respondent for the offence punishable under Section 77 of the Companies Act was uncalled for and that the order of companymitting criminal case to the Sessions Court was also number proper.
for the State.
262/89.
4216 of 1994 came up for companysideration before the High Court.
with them for the appellant Shanti Phushan, Arun Jaitely, Sr.
Aggrieved by the companymon order of the High Court, the present appeals by special leave are preferred.
The companytesting respondents moved the Gujarat High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge declining to grant anticipatory bail and also against the order of the Magistrate registering the case and companymitting the same for proceeding further by the Sessions Court.
for M s. I.M.Nanavati Associates Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are given below The appellant who was a General Secretary of Hind Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat to which Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat a recognised trade union of a limited companypany, originally known as M s. Sayaji Mills Ltd. number known as Sayaji Industries Ltd, is affiliated.
Ltd. shall remain with Suhash Bhai Mehta, brother of the first respondent.
The learned Judge further found that the companyplaint was at the instance of somebody to settle his score with the companytesting respondents and it was a clear case of deliberate attempt on the part of the companyplainant to use the machinery of the companyrt for an oblique purpose.
The learned Sessions Judge rejected that application for anticipatory bail.
The companytesting respondents are father and son.
Therefore, a modification to the memorandum of understanding was entered into between the same parties on 13.11.1982.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Venkataswami, J. These appeals arise out of a companyplain filed by the appellant which was subsequently registered as Criminal Case No.
As per the modified memorandum of understanding, it was agreed that the companytesting respondents will deposit Rs.
The companypany also was number impleaded as a party accused.
Co. Pvt.
