Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Case On Privelged Communications

    Uploaded by

    Denny Alexander
    The petitioner challenged a summons order issued against him by the trial court in a fraud investigation being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. The Court noted that under the Companies Act, prosecution can relate not just to companies but also individuals involved in any fraud. It held that the allegations against the petitioner of involvement in an illegal mining conspiracy were sufficient for the summons at this initial stage, and the petitioner could raise further arguments before the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case On Privelged Communications

    Uploaded by

    Denny Alexander
    36 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged a summons order issued against him by the trial court in a fraud investigation being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. The Court noted that under the Companies Act, prosecution can relate not just to companies but also individuals involved in any fraud. It held that the allegations against the petitioner of involvement in an illegal mining conspiracy were sufficient for the summons at this initial stage, and the petitioner could raise further arguments before the trial court.

    Original Title

    Case on privelged communications

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged a summons order issued against him by the trial court in a fraud investigation being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. The Court noted that under the Companies Act, prosecution can relate not just to companies but also individuals involved in any fraud. It held that the allegations against the petitioner of involvement in an illegal mining conspiracy were sufficient for the summons at this initial stage, and the petitioner could raise further arguments before the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Case On Privelged Communications

    Uploaded by

    Denny Alexander
    The petitioner challenged a summons order issued against him by the trial court in a fraud investigation being conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. The Court noted that under the Companies Act, prosecution can relate not just to companies but also individuals involved in any fraud. It held that the allegations against the petitioner of involvement in an illegal mining conspiracy were sufficient for the summons at this initial stage, and the petitioner could raise further arguments before the trial court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

    Page 1 Tuesday, August 09, 2022


    Printed For: King & Partridge .
    SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
    © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Crl. M.C. 647/2019

    Vikas Agarwal v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

    2019 SCC OnLine Del 7101

    In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi


    (BEFORE SUNIL GAUR, J.)

    Vikas Agarwal .…. Petitioner;


    v.
    Serious Fraud Investigation Office .…. Respondent.
    Crl. M.C. 647/2019 & Crl. M.A. 2713/2019
    Decided on February 6, 2019
    Advocates who appeared in this case :
    Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. Adnan Siddiqui and
    Mr. Ashutosh Senger, Advocates
    Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. Randeep Sachdeva and Ms. Mallika Hiremath,
    Advocates
    The Order of the Court was delivered by
    SUNIL GAUR, J.:— Impugned order of 24th January, 2019 summons petitioner for
    commission of offence under Sections 418/120B of IPC and under Section 447 of the
    Companies Act, 2013.
    2. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the only allegation leveled
    against petitioner, as noticed in the impugned order, is that petitioner who is arrayed
    as A-27 with his co-accused A-24, A-25 & A-26, were partners in the mining firm
    which was indulging in illegal mining activities and were part of a larger conspiracy. It
    is alleged against petitioner and his co-accused that they had provided unsecured loan
    to the Trust.
    3. The submission advanced on behalf of petitioner is that any prosecution under
    the Companies Act, 2013 is to be confined to the Companies only and not to private
    individuals. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 447 of the Companies
    Act, 2013 to point out that the fraud is in relation to the affair of the company and not
    in respect of any individual. So, it is submitted that the impugned order qua petitioner
    is liable to set aside, as the trial court has no jurisdiction to summon the petitioner.
    4. It is pointed out that the Central Government vide order of 8th January, 2016 has
    limited the investigation into the affairs of the company, and not in respect of any
    private individual. It is also pointed out that vide order of 23rd/24th February, 2016,
    Central Government has confined the investigation qua 104 companies and not
    against any private individual and the investigation has been carried out beyond the
    time stipulated by the Central Government in the aforesaid communication. It is also
    submitted that no other allegation against petitioner is there in the complaint filed by
    respondent. It is further submitted that as per Section 212 of the Companies Act,
    2013 sanction has to be taken for prosecution in respect of the offences under this Act
    and the said sanction has to be in relation to the company or its officer, employees or
    any person directly or indirectly connected with the affairs of the company and not
    against any private individual.
    5. On the contrary, learned standing counsel for respondent supports the impugned
    order and submits that that as per Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 the
    definition of fraud includes any person who connives in any manner to deceive or to
    SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
    Page 2 Tuesday, August 09, 2022
    Printed For: King & Partridge .
    SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
    © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    gain undue advantage from any company and so the trial court has the jurisdiction to
    summon petitioner and in any case, petitioner has efficacious remedy to raise the
    pleas taken herein before the trial court at the charge stage. It is next submitted that
    at the summoning stage, indepth examination of the case is not required to be
    undertaken. Learned Standing counsel for respondent submits that sanction for
    prosecution of petitioner has been granted after satisfying that a prima facie case for
    prosecution of petitioner is made out.
    6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the
    relevant provisions of the Companies Act, I find that the definition of fraud provided in
    the explanation to Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 makes it clear that the
    prosecution is to relate to the companies in the first instance and also to other persons
    who have in any manner connived in commission of the offence to gain undue
    advantage.
    7. A bare perusal of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 reveals that there is
    no bar of limitation to proceed under Sections 212 or 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
    What is the larger conspiracy cannot be prejudged at this initial stage and is required
    to be examined at trial. At the summoning stage, limited scrutiny is required to be
    undertaken. Upon doing so, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This
    Court finds that the trial court has jurisdiction to proceed against petitioner, as
    sanction for the prosecution has already been taken. In the considered opinion of this
    Court, trial court does not lack the jurisdiction to proceed against petitioner.
    8. Finding no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, the petition and
    application are accordingly dismissed, while not commenting on the merits of the
    case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.
    ———
    Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
    notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
    or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
    rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
    authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy