Supreme Court of India
Jagriti Upbhogta Kalyan Parishad & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1999SC1498, 1998(4)SCALE15, AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1498, 1998 AIR SCW 3857, 1998 (4) SCALE 15, (1998) 4 SCALE 15
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare
ORDER
1. We have perused the Office Report dated May 13, 1998. From the Office Report it appears that in pursuance of the affidavit filed by V.K. Tiwari, certain properties have been attached by the District Judges of Mathura and Meerut and letters in that regard have been received. No communication has been received from the District Judges of Lucknow, Mainpuri and Amreli with regard to the attachment of the properties within their jurisdiction. The said District Judges be sent an urgent reminder to send the compliance reports within three weeks from the date of this Order.
2. In the affidavit of V.K. Tiwari dated April 28, 1998, the full particulars of the property at Pipavav Port are not given. The name of the person in whose name the property stands has not been disclosed and it is also stated as to what are the rights of the company or the directors of Respondent No. 12 in the said property. Shri Mahesh Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for V.K. Tiwari and the company (Respondent No. 12) states that the said property stands in the name of respondent No. 12, and is in the nature of leasehold property. The learned counsel also states that V.K. Tiwari undertakes to identify the property for the purpose of attachment. The District Judge, Amreli, will take steps to attach the said property and for that purpose V.K. Tiwari would appear before the District Judge, Amreli, on 22nd May, 1998 so as to enable the District Judge, Amreli, to attach the said property. V.K. Tiwari will also file an affidavit indicating the nature of the interest of the company (Respondent No. 12) in the said property.
3. In the affidavit of V.K. Tiwari dated March 18, 1998, reference has been made to the 5 bighas of agricultural land in village Ghazipur, U.P. which V.K. Tiwari claims to have inherited from his father. The full particulars of the said property have not been mentioned. The District Judge, Ghazipur, is directed to attach the said properties. V.K. Tiwari would appear before the District Judge, Ghazipur, on May 29, 1998 to enable the District Judge, Ghazipur, to attach the said property.
4. By our Order dated March 20, 1998, the Union of India was directed to have a special audit conducted by a reputed chartered accountant so as to find out the amounts which have been received by way of deposits by respondent No. 12 from the consumers, dealers and distributors and by way of cost of Application Forms and the amount that has actually been refunded by respondent No. 12 to the consumers, dealers and distributOrs. A memorandum dated May 1, 1998 has been received from S.B. Mathur, Director, Inspection & Investigation, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, wherein it is stated that M/s. Chaturvedi & Co. Chartered Accountants have been appointed as Auditors to carry out the special audit and that in their letter dated April 21, 1998 M/s. Chaturvedi & Co. Chartered Accountants, have reported that special audit could not be conducted as the premises of the company where the company maintains its registered office was sealed by the Police, CID Branch, U.P. by the order of the Court. In order to enable the special audit to be conducted in pursuance of the order of this Court, we modify our order dated February 8, 1998, and direct that V.K. Tiwari, and the other directors and employees of the company, (respondent No. 12) will place/produce before the persons authorised by the Chartered Accountants M/s. Chaturvedi & Co., all relevant books and documents which are required by them for the purpose of conducting the special audit. The seals shall be removed by the District Judge, Lucknow, to enable the persons authorised by M/s. Chaturvedi & Co. Chartered Accountants to carry out the special audit. The failure on the part of the directors/ employees of Respondent No. 12 to co-operate with the auditors will entail proceedings for contempt of court being initiated against them.
5. So far no statement has been filed before this Court with regard to the bank accounts of the various directors of respondent No. 12. Shri Mahesh Srivastava, the learned counsel, appearing for V.K. Tiwari, states that V.K. Tiwari has sent notices to the directors to furnish the particulars of their accounts but they have not responded to the said notices. It is directed that V.K. Tiwari will file an affidavit indicating the names and addresses of the persons who have been the directors of respondent No. 12 ever since its incorporation during the course of the day. It is directed that notices be issued to the directors mentioned in the said affidavit and they should be required to be personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
6. Annexure-II to the Report of Limited Inspection dated April 16, 1998 contains a list of shareholders of respondent No. 12. The Senior Police Officer conducting the investigation is directed to ascertain the immovable properties of the said shareholders and file the same before this Court so that appropriate directions may be given with regard to the said properties.
7. We are not satisfied with the pace as well as the seriousness of the investigation that is being conducted by the Police. The Additional Director General of Police who is incharge of the investigation shall file an affidavit indicating the progress which has been made in the investigation after the registration of the FIR/FIRs. The said affidavit shall be filed before the reopening of the Court after the vacation. The Additional Director General of Police is also directed to be personally present in the Court on the next date of hearing.
8. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lacs only) which is lying in deposit shall be renewed for a further period of six months from the date of its maturity.
9. I.A. No. 8/98. From I.A. No. 8 filed on behalf of Abha Tiwari it appears that the said applicant is having the following properties in her name:-
"I) 20-A/3 Gokhle Marg, Lucknow which is known as Saushil Commercial Complex (three storey building);
II B-65 Sec.C Mahangar, Lucknow;
III A flat at Wazir Hasan Road, Lucknow;
IV Agricultural land about eight bigha at Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow."
10. The District Judge, Lucknow, is directed to attach the said properties, if the same have not been attached so far.
11. Put up on July 24, 1998.