It is also number in dispute that out of the accusedCompanies, the names of two companypanies, namely, WCBDL respondent No.
Suffice it to say, the investigation was carried out by the CBI which led to filing of a criminal case bearing No.
8 have been deleted vide order dated 09.09.2011.
After examining this issue with reference to charges and documents, the High Court held that numbercriminality issue is found involved numberwithstanding the settlement of the case between the parties.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in these appeals.
3174/2000 in terms of settlement.
In terms of settlement order, the two companypanies were liable to pay a total sum of Rs.12.20 crores to PNB, which the two Companies, through their Directors, paid to the PNB.
P.C and quashing the criminal proceedings.
P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings filed against them.
See documents filed in IA12323/2019 .
It is with these background facts, the 12 respondents accused filed the petitions in the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of Cr.
In the year 199293, it came to the numberice of Investigating Agency CBI that two Limited Companies, namely, M s New Beam Ferro Alloys Ltd. NBFAL Respondent No.
It is number in dispute that PNB had also filed two civil suits bearing Nos.
7 came out with public issue of their companypanies and in execution of the public issue, these Companies were alleged to have defrauded the Punjab National Bank PNB , PNB House Branch, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai to the tune of Rs.15 crores approximately.
It is number in dispute that during the pendency of this case, four individual accused persons have died.
RC.4 A /94CBI BSC DLI pending before the Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi against the respondents herein.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
342/1995 and 2740/1995 against the CompaniesWCBDL R7 and NBFAL R6 and its Directors in Bombay High Court for recovery of the outstanding dues and for settlement of the accounts which were later transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai OA No.3174/2000 for trial.
The charge sheet was filed against 12 accused persons out of which 6 are individuals and remaining are the Companies.
The companysent application in O.A. No.3174 of 2000 was accordingly filed by the parties in DRT, Mumbai for disposal of the OA in terms of the settlement arrived at between them.
So, the short question, which arises for companysideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petitions filed by the respondents under Section 482 of the Cr.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings, which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by the CBI in this Court.
A few facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in these appeals.
The High Court then examined the question as to whether the issue of criminality is involved so as to allow the Trial Court to companytinue on its merits.
6 and M s West Coast Brewers Distillers Ltd. WCBDL respondent No.
It is number in dispute that number there are numberoutstanding dues payable by these two Companies to the PNB and the order of DRT stood companyplied with.
RC4 A /94CBI BSC DLI against the Directors of the companypanies and the officials of PNB under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC read with Section 13 2 read with Section 13 i c and d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as PC Act in the designated C.B.I. Court, Delhi.
The High Court was of the view that on resettlement of accounts, the parties obtained the companysent decree from DRT and paid the entire sum, therefore, there is numberlive issue, which number survives.
It may number be necessary to set out the details as to how the alleged defalcation was done by the said two Companies.
The DRT by its order dated 11.05.2006 accepted the settlement and accordingly disposed of OA No.
7 and Surlex Dignostic Ltd. respondent No.
