Against the said order of dismissal, the appellant herein filed an application before the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Application No.
As regards resolution of the companypany passed on 31.12.2001 was companycerned, it was held that companyplainant failed to file the same, while he was in the witness box.
Feeling aggrieved thereof, this appeal has been preferred by the companyplainant companypany.
1 accused No.1 herein was working as a caretaker with the Company to look after the flat.
Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did number examine the matter in proper perspective and fell into grave error, in refusing to grant leave and rejected the appellants application, for prosecution of the accused under Section 630 of the Act.
450 of 2007 seeking leave to file the appeal which was also dismissed on Crl.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
No.6204 of 2008 14.7.2008, 2 giving rise to filing of this appeal by the original companyplainant.
38/S/2005 filed by appellant herein against accused respondent No.1 and 2, whereby and whereunder the appellants criminal companyplaint filed under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC and under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act was dismissed.
Unfortunately, the accused have also with vehemence supported hypertechnicalities adopted by the aforesaid two companyrts, to companytend that numberinterference is called for in the light of the facts as found in the aforesaid two orders.
Facts shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned herein below Appellant is a Company hereinafter shall be referred to as the Company duly registered under the Act and is carrying on business of manufacturing two and three wheelers automobile products.
