Karnataka High Court
Sri A K Kanoria vs M/S Bangalore Pesticides Ltd on 17 April, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5250 of 2008
BETWEEN:
Sri. A.K. Kanoria,
Ex-Managing Director,
No.170, 10th Main,
II Cross, RMV Extension,
Bangalore - 560 034. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M.M. Swamy, Advocate)
AND:
M/s. Bangalore Pesticides Limited,
(in liqn.) represented by
The Official Liquidator,
attached to High Court of Karnataka,
4th Floor, 'D' and 'F' Wing,
Kendriyasadan,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. Deepak and Shri. V. Jayaram, Advocates)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
18.06.2007 in C.C.No.553/2007 by the Special Court for
Economic Offences, Bangalore and also all other proceedings
pursuant thereto.
This petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is said to be the ex-Managing Director of a Public Limited Company namely M/s. Bangalore Pesticides Limited which was ordered to be wound up by the Company Court in Company Petition No.40/1998 by an order dated 16.02.1999. The Official Liquidator was appointed to look into the affairs of the Company. The Official Liquidator had filed an application under Section 538(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Companies Act', for brevity) in C.A.No.1662/2000 before the Company Court on the ground that a Maruthi car bearing No.CKN 657 had not been delivered 3 to the respondent - Official Liquidator. That application was resisted by the petitioner by filing objections denying that there was any such default. It was claimed that the car had been sold even during the course of the business of the company in the year 1995 itself for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was reflected both in the Books of Accounts of the Company as well as the purchaser, and sought to produce documents in support of the same. The application however was disposed of with the observation by the Company Court that the applications would more properly be addressed by the court of the Magistrate. It is in that background that proceedings had been initiated in respect of the very same default before the Court of the Magistrate. It is now the grievance of the petitioner that on a complaint filed under Section 538(1) of the Companies Act read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity), the Magistrate having issued process to the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.
4
3. The defence sought to be set up is reiterated. In that, the car had been transferred much prior to the order of winding up and therefore, the question of accounting for the same and producing it before the Official Liquidator did not arise. It was noticed that the documents produced did not include the actual transfer of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle before the Competent Authority. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner having sought for time to produce such a document, has now produced a certified copy of the extract of the original Registration Certificate from the 'B' Register maintained by the Transport Department, Government of Karnataka in respect of the vehicle in question to indicate that it has been transferred in favour of a third party as on 8.6.2000, whereas, it was claimed by the petitioner that the car had been sold in favour of M/s. Kanoria Plaschem Limited. However, the certificate now produced is in respect of a transfer made to one Mohammed Ali which is not consistent with the contention raised. But then, the petitioner has also produced Books of 5 Accounts to indicate that sale of the vehicle had taken place earlier in the year 1995 and the formal documentation apparently was not made insofar as the said transaction is concerned.
4. As the vehicle is of the make of the year 1988 and the life of the vehicle would have spent itself out, the lacuna insofar as the transfer not being reflected by formal documents at the relevant point of time, therefore would not visit the petitioner with serious consequences having regard to the value of the vehicle as on date. Therefore, the claim that it was indeed transferred in the year 1995 could even be accepted. Consequently, the order dated 18.06.2007 in C.C.No.553/2007 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore and all other proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS