Chetan Dilipkumar Nemlawala Director ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 September, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Chetan Dilipkumar Nemlawala Director ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 September, 2018

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

         R/SCR.A/8002/2018                              ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8002 of 2018

================================================================
     CHETAN DILIPKUMAR NEMLAWALA DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED
         SIGNATORY OF SURGI AID LIFECARE PRIVATE LIMITED
                             Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
MR K.P.RAVAL, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                             Date : 20/09/2018

                              ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under article 14 and 226 seeking direction to consider the petition of the petitioner against erring party (proposed complainant) and to register an FIR against the accused persons.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner took this court through the contents of the representation addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Surat dated 13.03.2018 and also the order of NCLAT, NEW DELHI and submitted that the offence in connection of financial misappropriation is made out against the proposed accused and therefore the respondents were obliged to register an FIR.

Page 1 of 2

          R/SCR.A/8002/2018                                     ORDER



3.     The    Court          has   gone   through   the   contents     of   the

representation dated 13.03.2018, the reference is made with regard to the financial transactions which are dated as back as in the year 2010, during the first claim was laid in the year 2011. The reading of the representation in the opinion of this Court does not disclose the ingredients to attract the offence under sections 406 or

405.

4. The Court has also taken into consideration the order of the NCLAT, which appears to be on the line of the petitioner stating his claim as the Director which was opposed by the company therefore, even from the finding given by the NCLAT in its order the offence cannot be said to be committed.

5. Having considered the contents of both these documents and the fact that the petitioner had been aptly litigating for the cause before the NCLAT as well as the fact that the claim of the petitioner is already time barred no order is required to be passed in this petition and hence the petition stands dismissed.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) URIL Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court