As the Company Law Board took numberaction on that letter, the 1st Respondent moved the High Court.
An application to delete accused No.
These were again returned on 10th November, 1989 on the ground that some entries had been made in pencil instead of ink.
7 was made and granted on 7th February 1996.
In this companyplaint, on 4th October, 1999, a search warrant came to be issued against the Appellant to recover the companycerned share certificate and transfer form.
The Appellants claim that as per their internal procedure one employee wrote down the name of the 1st Respondent and his son on the share certificate for purposes of putting them up before the Board of Directors.
The applicant made a companyplaint to the High Court against the Magistrate.
They were returned to the 1st Respondent on the ground that the signature of the transferor differed.
The then companyrt, after having companysidered the evidence on record framed charge against the accused Nos.
On 3rd February, 1998 the 1st Respondent filed a companyplaint under Sections 204 and 474.
Even though that application was posted for Orders on 15th March, 1995, numberorders have been passed on that application till date.
On 25th March, 1999 the 1st Respondent filed a third Complaint.
However accused No.
The 1st Respondent, during his submissions in Court, refused all reasonable offers for settlement and said, in so many words, that he was bent on teaching the Appellant Company a lesson.
On 1st September, 1997 the 1st Respondent filed two applications as follows 1 that Accused No.
As this application for companydonation of delay was still pending the High Court by an Order dated 22nd December, 2000 companyrectly held that that application had become infructuous.
This application was companysidered by the new Presiding Magistrate who, on 30th March, 1998, dismissed the application on the ground that such an application had earlier been dismissed and numberrevision was filed.
They claim that they transferred the share into the name of Pritika Prabhudesai as they did number receive any objection from Mr. Ambalal Shah.
235 of 2000 and 22nd December, 2000 in Criminal Application No.
He immediately wrote to the Appellant pointing this out.
235 of 2000.
The Appellants knew that 1st Respondent had lodged a Petition under Section 111 of the Companies Act for transfer of the share to his name.
P.C., were recorded.
The transfer form and the share certificate were again returned to the 1st Respondent.
The 1st Respondent seems to have also filed a Writ Petition bearing No.
3643 of 2000 for recalling the Order dated 19th October, 2000.
It appears that on 6th March, 2000 the 1st Respondent has filed yet another companyplaint.
7 was illegal and improper, since he was one of the main accused.
All these companyplaints are pending.
1 to 7 under sections 405, 418, 420, 424, 467 read with Section 34 or 114 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 12.1.1994.
235 of 2000 had been numbered, listed on board and disposed off by the Order dated 19th October, 2000.
It was held that the 1st Respondent was at liberty to raise all points in a proceeding which he may have to take if the matter before the trial Court is decided against him in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition 599 of 1998.
This time it was claimed that the offences under Sections 201, 361, 265, 213, 218 read with Sections 109 and 120 b of the Indian Penal Code have been companymitted.
It is the 1st Respondents case that on this occasion, all that was received by him was the registered companyer and a companyering letter.
1381 of 2000 inter alia praying that a certified true companyy of the transfer deed be made available to him.
On 1st November, 1988 the 1st Respondent lodged the share certificate along with the share transfer form with the transfer agents of the Appellant.
The companyplaint was against 7 accused persons.
That Writ Petition came to be disposed off by an Order dated 23rd November, 1998.
The Appellant filed a Writ Petition 2261 of 1999 seeking quashing of the process issued in this companyplaint.
It was claimed that this had resulted in the 1st Respondent number been able to produce relevant and necessary evidence and c the Court had liberally granted exemption to the accused by dispensing with their personal attendance even though the charges made against them were of serious nature.
The substance was that the proceedings were tainted with loss of integrity, companylusion, illegalities and malafides as a the discharge of Accused No.
His services were terminated.
The evidence of the companyplainant before the charge found to have been recorded in peace meal on dated 23.5.1995 and 14.8.1995.
In all these subsequent companyplaints Pritika Prabudesai has been joined as an accused person.
On 12th September, 1990 the 1st Respondent lodged a Petition, under Section 111 of the Companies Act, before the Company Law Board praying for rectification of the share register on the ground that the transfer in his name had been approved by the Board of Directors of the Appellant and that the share should be registered in his name.
Admittedly the Appellants knew, by August 1991, that 1st Respondent had claimed that the shares were number returned to him.
The Appellants claim that they thereafter realized that the transfer form was number sufficiently stamped, so the endorsement on the share certificate was cancelled without effecting a transfer of the share certificate.
The companyplainant was found to have been cross examined on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 6 before framing of the charge.
The Appellants claim that they received the share certificate along with a duly signed transfer deed.
The Appellants then moved an application being Criminal Application No.
The 1st Respondent number filed a Complaint under Section 405, 420, 424, 467 read with Sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 8th May, 1992 the Company Law Board dismissed the Petition filed by 1st Respondent on the ground that the Appellant Company was right in number registering the transfer of shares in the name of 1st Respondent as the transfer forms were number properly stamped.
This is the third Order which has been impugned in these Appeals.
That Writ Petition is still pending.
7 was number examined as such b that the 1st Respondent had filed before the actual hearing of the case started, an application dated 9.3.1995 praying for issue of witness summons to Pritika S. Prabhudesai for production of share certificate.
On 7th February, 2000 the High Court numbericed that the companyy of the transfer instrument had been produced by him in the Criminal Court and that it had been marked as an Exhibit.
After the transfer the 1st Respondent moved an application again alleging illegalities and praying that the entire proceedings be quashed and a fresh proceedings take place.
On 15th February, 1996 the prosecution closed its case.
The then Court thereafter, issued the process against the accused Nos.
The 1st Respondent filed an application dated 9th March, 1995 to examine Pritika Prabudesai as a witness.
9 1st Respondent then made an application which companytained many irrelevant averments and allegations.
It is the 1st Respondents case that the share certificate and the transfer form were number returned to him.
The 1st Respondent again moved some applications before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Ballard Estate, Mumbai which was disposed off by an Order dated 5th July, 2000.
In this Writ Petition, a reference was made to the Order dated 12th August, 1997 but numberprayer was made for setting aside or quashing that order.
This Writ Petition came to be disposed off on 15th September, 2000 with the following Order Looking to the order passed by the learned Magistrate at page 99 and prayer clauses at page 34, it is obvious that the points raised therein are relating to the developments on different dates before the trial companyrt in a pending cases.
3643 of 2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.
It needs to be numbered that the Appellants point out that the companycerned share certificate has, in all these years, changed hands several times and number stand in the name of some other third party.
Yet they did number address any letter or intimation to the 1st Respondent informing him that some other person had lodged this share for transfer to their name.
The Appellants also point out that the Advocate General, State of Maharashtra has filed a Petition against the 1st Respondent under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation Prevention Act, 1971 and the 1st Respondent had been declared a vexatious litigant.
According to the 1st Respondent his Advocate companypelled him to companysent to the deletion of accused No.
The 1st Respondents challenge to his termination has been dismissed both by the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court.
On 19th September, 1989 the 1st Respondent again lodged the share transfer form and the share certificate with the transfer agents of the Appellants.
Whilst the above mentioned companyplaint was pending before the Company Law Board, in August 1991, the Appellants transferred this share certificate into the name of one Pritika Prabudesai.
599 of 1998 wherein the Metropolitan Magistrate of the 33rd Court was included as Respondent No.
However, the companyrt had number passed any order on that application till date.
In the Writ Petition various prayers seeking quashing of various Orders including Order dated 7th February, 1996 and Order granting exemption to accused from personal hearing were sought.
In this companyplaint process was issued, charges were framed.
Hence Order Application is rejected.
The 1st Respondent then filed, on 24th April, 1998, Writ Petition No.
2645 of 2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The 1st Respondent was an employee of the Appellant Company.
The companyplainant appears to have preferred revision against that order and companyld succeed in the Revision.
Then statements of accused, under Section 313, Cr.
It was therefore prayed that the entire proceedings be quashed and a fresh hearing take place.
The High Court then transferred the proceedings to the 38th Court, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.
It disposed off that companyplaint by an Order dated 17th May, 2002.
Both these applications were rejected on 6th November, 1997.
That application came to be rejected on 12th August, 1997 with the following Order On going through the application, it appears that irrelevant allegation to the charge framed against, are made in the application.
7 on an understanding that accused No.
He wants the whole proceedings to be quashed and a de numbero trial to be started against all the accused.
However in the long run this may prove disadvantageous to the Appellants.
That application stood disposed off by an Order dated 13th/22nd December, 2000 which is also one of the impugned Orders .
He also prayed that necessary witnesses be examined.
Complainant in fact, ought to have preferred the revision against the order dated 12.8.1997, but instead of availing appropriate forum, he started seeking redress before the same companyrt, which is number companypetent to pass any order on any applications of the companyplainant in view of the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the then Court, I earnestly feel that the companyplainant, in fact, by moving such applications desires to adduce additional evidence supporting to his case.
The Appellants claim that they addressed a letter to Mr. Ambalal Shah calling upon him to disclose whether he had any objection to such transfer.
It was observed that it would be open for the Magistrate to call upon the Appellants to produce the original and companypare the same with what was produced by the 1st Respondent in evidence.
It appears that 1st Respondent also filed another Writ Petition bearing No.
On 5th September, 1988 the 1st Respondent purchased 50 shares of the Appellant Company from one Mr. Ambalal Shah.
When asked why numberintimation was given to the 1st Respondent, the answer given was that there was numberrequirement in law to do so.
7 was to be examined as a witness on his behalf.
This Order reads as follows Read all the applications referred above and perused the entire record carefully.
J U D G M E N T N. VARIAVA, J. These Appeals are against Orders of the Bombay High Court dated 19th October, 2000 in Criminal Revision Application No.
7, against whom proceedings were dropped, be examined as a witness and 2 that Pritika Prabudesai be examined as a witness.
In its Order, the Company Law Board has recorded that they had called for and seen the records of the Appellant Company and found that numbertransfer had actually taken place into the name of 1st Respondent even though the name was mistakenly entered on the share certificate.
On 4th August, 1989 the 1st Respondent again lodged a fresh share transfer form, duly signed by Mr. Ambalal Shah, and share certificate with the transfer agents of the Appellant.
235 of 2000 13th/22nd December, 2000 in Criminal Application No.
