Sonia Khosla vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors on 30 September, 2021

[Cites 11, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court

Sonia Khosla vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors on 30 September, 2021

1. The petitioner, now represented through her Legal Representative, vide this petition has sought that the Court proceeds under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, against the prospective accused without notice to them.

2. Vide order dated 15.2.2010 it was observed vide para 8 thereof to the effect:

"8. In view of the fact that the respondents Mr. Vinod Surha and Mr. Wadia Prakash have claimed before the CLB to have been appointed as Directors in the AGM which they had held on 30/09/06 showing the petitioner Sonia Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 1 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Khosla also to be present in that meeting, being the shareholder as well as the Director of the Company, while her passport shows that she had left India on 16/09/06 and come back on 03/10/06, this aspect definitely needs to be enquired into. However, before any final decision is taken by this Court for exercising the powers under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. for making a complaint to the Magistrate, this Court deems it fit to hold a preliminary enquiry for looking into the claim of the petitioner that she was not in India during the period from 16/09/06 to 03/10/06 and for that reason she could not have been present in the AGM of the Company which respondents 2 and 3 herein had allegedly held on 30/09/06 and so the minutes of 30/09/06 are fabricated. I, therefore, direct the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court to hold a preliminary enquiry into the said aspect relating to the genuineness of the minutes of the AGM held on 30/09/06 and for that purpose he would be at liberty to take any steps including inspection of the record of this petition as well as that of the Company Law Board and the Company. The report would be submitted to this Court within six weeks."

3. The inquiry report of the Registrar Vigilance is indicated to have been received as observed vide order dated 2.7.2010.

4. Vide order dated 16.8.2010 it was observed to the effect:

"+CO.Appln. No.1299/2010 in Crl.M.(CO.) No.3/2008 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that operation of the order of this Court dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 2 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

15.02.2010 has been stayed by the Supreme Court, therefore, the matter may be adjourned.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid stay order has been obtained by the respondent by misleading the Court inasmuch as in their SLP they have referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein it was observed thus:-

"9. .. .. This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of Section 195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring in clause

(b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Cr.P.C. This indicates that clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court."

Petitioner submits that bare reading of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court would show that the judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah's Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 3 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

case(supra) dealt with the provisions of Section 195(a)(i) and Section 195(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") and not pertaining to the offence of perjury governed by Section 195(b)(i) of the Code and it was not brought to the knowledge of the Supreme Court that the instant petition in which the order dated 15.02.2010 was passed related to the offence mentioned in Section 195(b)(i) of the Code. Thus, in effect, it is submitted by the petitioner that aforesaid stay order which was passed by the Supreme Court has no bearing on this matter and at best, if that stay order is to be taken into consideration, that would amount to 'that all acts done pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2010 may not be taken into consideration while disposing of the petition'. It is also contended that the respondents did not even inform the Supreme Court that the Registrar (Vigilance), pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2010 had already submitted his inquiry report in this Court and that the petitioner is not claiming any action for the offences mentioned in Section 195(a)(i) or 195(b)(ii) of the Code.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the stay order, no further proceedings can be carried out in this matter till the stay is vacated or some clarificatory order is given by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the attendance recorded in the order of stay, petitioner was represented in the Supreme Court and also that it would not be appropriate to have two parallel inquiries into the allegations made in the petition; one suo moto inquiry by this Court and other by the Registrar (Vigilance).

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties. This is a petition seeking forwarding a complaint under Section 340 of the Code. against the respondents in respect of the offence of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 4 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

perjury which is pending disposal for the last almost one year. The matter relates to criminal administration of justice, therefore, it would not be appropriate to refuse to proceed with the petition because of stay of operation of order dated 15.02.2010 if the petition can be disposed of without referring to the report of Registrar (Vigilance) pursuant to the inquiry conducted by him in furtherance of the aforesaid order of this Court.

The issue basically relates to the user of the AGM minutes of M/s Montreaux Resorts (P) Ltd. dated 30.09.2006 in the court proceedings to substantiate the plea of the respondents before Company Law Board, which minutes are claimed to be forged. On perusal of the copy of those minutes, it transpires that those have been authenticated by the respondent Vinod Surha and also reflect the presence of all the three· respondents in the AGM, which is also claimed to have been attended by Sonia Khosla, one of the Directors whereas according to the petitioner, Sonia Khosla was not in India on that very day.

This controversy can be resolved without going into the inquiry report submitted by Registrar (Vigilance) pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.02.2010 by asking the parties to file the affidavit. Petitioner and the respondents may file affidavit verifying whether or not any AGM was actually' held on that date and they attended the same and whether or not Ms. Sonia Khosla was present in that meeting. Petitioner Sonia Khosla shall also produce her original passport with visa entries on the date fixed.

List on 26.08.2010 at 2.15 p.m. for consideration of affidavits as well as for arguments"

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 5 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

5. Vide order dated 24.4.2012 in LPA No. 16/2012 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court all proceedings pending between the parties had been stayed.

6. Vide order dated 8.5.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.6873/2010 between the parties herein vide paragraphs 21 to 24 it was observed to the effect:

" 21. In fact, though the learned Senior Counsel for the parties had argued the matters before us at length on the previous occasions, at the stage of conclusions of the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Cama appearing for Khosla Group suggested for an early decision of the Company Petition before the CLB as a better alternative so that at least main dispute between the parties is adjudicated upon at an early date. He was candid in his submission that the issues which are subject matter of these two Special Leave Petitions and arise out of the proceedings in the High Court, have their origin in the orders dated 31.1.2008, which is an interim order passed by the CLB. He thus, pointed out that once the Company Petition itself is decided, the issues involved therein namely whether Board meeting dated 14.12.2007 was illegal or whether Board meeting dated 30.9.2006 was barred in law would also get decided. In the process the CLB would also be in a position to decide as to whether minutes of AGM of the Company allegedly held on 30.9.2006 are forged or not and on that basis application under Section 340 Cr.PC which is filed before the Company Law Boared would also be taken care of by the CLB itself. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Bakshi Group immediately agreed with the aforesaid course of action suggested by Mr. Cama. We are happy that at least there is an agreement between both the parties on the procedural course of action, to give quietus to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 6 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

the matters before us as well. In view of the aforesaid consensus, about the course of action to be adopted in deciding the disputes between the parties, we direct the Company Law Board to decide Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 filed before it by Ms. Sonia Khosla within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Since, it is the CLB which will be deciding the application under Section 340 Cr. PC filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc. (Co.). No. 3 of 2008. Likewise the question whether Mr. R.K. Garg was validly inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in Co. Appeal No. (SB) 23 of 2009 filed by Mr. R.K. Garg in the High Court, also become otiose.

(emphasis supplied)

22. The only aspect on which some directions need to be given are, as to what should be the interim arrangement. The Bakshi Group wants orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by CLB to continue the interregnum. The Khosla Group on the other hand refers to orders dated 11.4.2008 as it is their submission that this was a consent order passed by the High Court after the orders of the CLB and, therefore, this order should govern the field in the meantime..

23. After considering the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to either enforce orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by the CLB or orders dated 11.4.2008 passed by the High Court. Fact remains that there has been a complete deadlock, as far as affairs of the Company are concerned. The project has not taken off. It is almost dead at present. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 7 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Unless the parties re-concile, there is no chance for a joint venture i.e. to develop the resort, as per the MOU dated 21.12.2005. It is only after the decision of CLB, whereby the respective rights of the parties are crystallised, it would be possible to know about the future of this project. Even the Company in question is also defunct at present as it has no other business activity or venture. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that more appropriate orders would be to direct the parties to maintain status quo in the meantime, during the pendency of the aforesaid company petition before the CLB. However, we make it clear that if any exigency arises necessitating some interim orders, it would be open to the parties to approach the CLB for appropriate directions.

24. Both these petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All other pending I.As including criminal contempt petitions and petitions filed under Section 340 Cr. PC are also disposed of as in the facts of this case, we are not inclined to entertain such application. No costs."

7. Vide the judgment dated 3.12.2018, CA No. 1089/2018 filed in the present petition Crl.M.(Co.) 3/2008 was disposed of observing to the effect vide paragraphs 3 to 18 thereof to the effect:

"13. A perusal of the order of the Supreme Court dated 08.05.2014 would show that the Supreme Court has specifically directed that the High Court need not proceed further with the present Crl.M (CO.) 3/2008.

(emphasis supplied)

14. By the present application, the petitioner herein has submitted that further proceedings in the main petition have been transferred to the Company Law Board/NCLT in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 8.5.2014 in SLP (Crl.) No.6873/2010 titled Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 8 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

as Vikram Bakshi & Ors. vs. Sonia Khosla (Dead) By LRs. Yet he submits that this court would continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt arising out of orders passed by this court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tayabbhai M.Bagasarwalla and another vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1997 SCC 1240. He also submits that issue of limitation would not arise in the present case as proceedings have been initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on judgment of this Court in Ram Phal and Ors. vs. B.S.Bhalla and Ors., 112(2004) DLT 193 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. vs. Sonia Khosla (dead) By LRs being SLP (Criminal) 6873/2010 dated

8.5.2014 nothing further survives in the present case.

16. This petition stands disposed of with the following directions by the Supreme Court regarding the present proceedings:-

"21.....In view of the aforesaid consensus, about the course of action to be adopted in deciding the disputes between the parties, we direct the Company Law Board to decide Company Petition No.114 of 2007 filed before it by Ms.Sonia Khosla within a period of six months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Since, it is the CLB which will be deciding the application under Section 340 Cr.PC filed by Ms.Sonia Khosla in the CLB, High Court need not proceed further with the Criminal Misc. (Co.) No.3 of 2008. Likewise the question whether Mr.R.K.Garg was validly inducted as a Director or not would be gone into by the CLB, the proceedings in Co.Appeal No.(SB) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 9 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

23 of 2009 filed by Mr.R.K.Garg in the High Court also become otiose."

17. In my opinion, it is manifest from a reading of the above orders of the Supreme Court that this petition is not to be heard. Disputes raised by the petitioner are to be adjudicated upon by the Company Law Board/NCLT. The order of the Supreme Court dated 8.5.2014 supersedes the orders and directions passed by this court on 16.8.2010. The said order dated 16.08.2010 was passed to aid in adjudicating this petition. As the petition itself does not survive in this court to be adjudicated, the respondents were not required to comply with the order dated 16.08.2010. I need not deal with the other submissions of the petitioner.

18. There is no merit in the present application. No case of contempt is made out. Same is dismissed."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Vide order dated 3.11.2020 in the present petition it was observed to the effect:

" Crl. M. (Co.) 3/2008 Present petition was transferred to this Court by the Bench of Hon 'ble Mr. Justice C. IIari Shankar on a statement made by Mr.Deepak Khosla that the present petition was connected to CrI.M.(Co.) 4/2019, pending before this Court.

CrI.M.(Co.) 4/2019 was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 13.08.2020 and a Review Petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court. While disposing of the said petition, it was mentioned in para 18 that CrI.M.(Co.) 3/2008 had been dismissed by the Co- ordinate Bench on 03.12.2018. Para 18 of the judgment dated 13.08.2020 has been modified by this Court vide Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 10 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

order dated 03.11.2020 observing that the CrI.M.(Co.) 3/2008 is pending.

In view of the above, the present petition need not be listed before this Court. During the arguments, Mr. Deepak Khosla had submitted that a connected matter being Crl. M.C. No. 3021/2019 is listed before Hon'ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra and prayed that the present petition be listed before the same Bench.

List before the Appropriate Bench, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on 05 .11.2020."

9. Co.Appl. No. 577/2020 dated 14.9.2020 was filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner submitting to the effect that in view of the directions dated 8.5.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court having become infructuous in as much as the NCLT had permitted the company petition to be withdrawn vide order dated 7.2.2020, the proceedings ought to be taken to their close expeditiously and the offenders be committed to trial for perjury committed before the erstwhile Company Law Board on 1.1.2008 in terms of the false statement made in paragraph 7 of the CM No. 1/2008 filed by the offenders. Co.Appl. No. 578/2020 is filed by the applicant seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the orders. Co.Appln. No. 602/2020 dated 7.10.2020 was filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner represented through her legal representative with virtually the same prayer as made vide Co.Appl. No. 577/2020 with the further submission made thereon that the Court proceeds to act on the inquiry report dated 31.5.2010 and takes the proceedings to its close expeditiously whilst committing the offenders to trial for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 11 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

perjury committed before the Company Law Board on 7.1.2008 in terms of the false statement made in paragraph 7 of CA No. 1/2008. Co.Appl.No. 625/2020 dated 16.10.2020 was filed by the legal representative of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, both for civil contempt as well as for criminal contempt, seeking that this Court enforces its order dated 16.8.2010 and in the event of it not being complied with, contempt proceedings be initiated against the prospective accused Nos. 1 to 3. The matter was reserved for orders on submissions made on behalf of either side qua these applications referred to in this paragraph vide order dated 26.3.2021 with it having been directed that the documents, if any, sought to be submitted, may be filed by either side.

10. Apparently, the reference to Co.Appl. No. 578/2020 in proceedings dated 26.3.2021 appears to be a typographical error as it apparently relates to Co.Appl. No. 577/2020, Co.Appl. 602/2020 and Co.Appln. no. 625/2020 and this inadvertent error appears to have proceeded even in the proceedings dated 23.8.2021. In any event, it is the submission in relation to Co.Appln. No. 577/2020, Co.Appl. No. 602/2020 and Co.Appl. No. 625/2020 that are germane presently.

11. The matter was taken up on an application bearing Co. Appln. No. 456/2021 filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC seeking liberty to place on record a copy of the order dated 5.5.2021 in Crl.M.(Co.) 4/2019 on the judicial record to submit to the effect that thereby it had been held that the order dated 8.5.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was no longer in force in view of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 12 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

factum that the Co. Petition No. 114/2007 had been dismissed as withdrawn by the NCLT.

12. In as much as, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of the advance notice of that application, it was considered appropriate that the documents sought to be placed on record with Co.Appln. No. 456/2021 were allowed to be placed on record and as prayed on behalf of the petitioner, a fresh hearing in the matter was granted and the matter was thus re-notified for consideration for the date 22.9.2021.

13. On 22.9.2021, submissions were made on behalf of either side in view of the fresh opportunity having been granted to either side to make submissions vide order dated 23.8.2021 in view of the order dated 5.5.2021 in Crl.M(Co.) 4/2019 having been allowed to be placed on record.

14. During the course of submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it was inter alia submitted that vide order dated 31.5.2021 in Co. Pet. 144/2016, the matter had been referred to Arbitration by the NCLAT and the copy of the said order was allowed to be placed on record and has since been so filed on 25.9.2021 with the matter having been reserved for pronouncement for today, i.e., 30.9.2021.

15. Written submissions were submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 23.9.2021 along with the documents to the effect:

"...

2. Annexure 1: Order dated 13-08-2020 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 4 of 2019

3. Annexure 2: Order dated 05-05-2021 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 4 of 2019

4. Annexure 3: Order dated 06-05-2008 passed in Crl.Misc. (Co.) No. 1 of 2008

5. Annexure 4: Order dated 28-072008 passed in CLB on CA No. 373 of 2008 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 13 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

6. Annexure 5: Summoning order 03-12-2009 by Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari.

7. Annexure 6: Order dated 15-02-2010 passed in these proceedings.

8. Annexure 7: Proceedings of the learned Registrar (Vigilance).

9. Annexure 8: Enquiry report dated 31-05-2010

10.Annexure 9: SLP (Crl.) No. 6873 of 2010 filed on 25-07-2010

11.Annexure 10: Supreme Court Judgment dated 08-05-2014

12.Annexure 11: CLB order dated 03-06-2014 in CP No.114 of 2007

13.Annexure 12: High Court order dated 24-07-2014 in Co.A.(SB)No. 35 of 2014.

14.Annexure 13: CLB order dated 08-08-2014 in CP No. 114 of 2007.

15.Annexure 14: NCLT order dated 05-12-2016 in CP No. 114 of 2007.

16.Annexure 15:NCLAT order dated 22-12-2016 flowing from CPNo.114 of 2007

17.Annexure16:NCLAT order dated 12-04-2017 flowing from CP No.114 of 2007

18.Annexure 17: Summoning order dated 22-06-2017 - ACMM (Saket).

19.Annexure18:NCLAT order dated 26-09-2018 flowing from CP No.114of 2007

20.Annexure19: Order dated 03-12-2018 passed in Crl. Misc. (Co.) No. 3 of 2008

21.Annexure20: High Court order dated 16-07-2019 in Crl. MC No. 774 of 2010.

22.Annexure21: Summoning order dated 09-09-2019 - ACMM (Tis Hazari).

23.Annexure22: High Court order dated 23-12-2019

24.Annexure23: NCLT order dated 07-02-2020 in CP No. 114 of 2007

25.Annexure24: NCLAT order dated 16-03-2020.

26.Annexure25: High Court order dated 03-02-2021 in CCP (Co.) No. 2 of 2010.

27.Annexure26: NCLT order dated 31-05-2021 in CP No. 144 of 2016.

28.Annexure27: ADJ Order dated 07-07-2021 in CS No. 443 of 2021.

29.Annexure28: NCLT order dated 02-09-2021 in CP No. 144 of 2016."

16. It is essential to observe that the petitioner through her legal representative vide the applications Co.Appln. Nos. 577/2020, 602/2020 and 625/2020 seeks the compliance of directions dated 16.8.2010 i.e. the submission of the affidavits of the parties, as directed thereby, verifying whether or not any AGM was actually held on the date 30.9.2006 and whether they attended the same and whether or not Ms. Sonia Khosla ( the original petitioner (since deceased)) was present in that meeting with the then petitioner Ms. Sonia Khosla having also been directed to produce her passport with VISA entries on the date fixed that was 26.8.2010.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 14 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

17. Co.Appln. No. 1089/2018, which was filed by the petitioner also sought the enforcement of the order dated 16.8.2010 of this Court and initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused. It is this express prayer which has been dismissed vide order dated 3.12.2018 of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court as disposed of by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayant Nath vide order dated 3.12.2018.

18. In the circumstances, the prayers that have been made by the applicant, i.e., the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, vide Co.Appln. Nos. 577/2020, 602/2020 and 625/2020 have necessarily to be placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath in view of the order dated 3.12.2018 qua Co.Appln. No. 1089/2018.

19. Subject to orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the proceedings of the Co.Appln. Nos. 577/2020, 602/2020 and 625/2020 and Crl.M.(Co.) No.3/2008 be placed before Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jayant Nath on 7.10.2021.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2021/SV Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:30.09.2021 Crl.M(Co.) 3/2008 14:57:08 This file is digitally signed by Page 15 of 15 PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court