Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

b. The family of Mr. Piyush Bhagat owns shares in Harmony Vinimay Pvt Ltd., and he is one of the shareholders and directors of the said company. It was agreed between the parties that the land in question would be developed through M/s BKS Infraprojects LLP, an entity of the opposite party no.
2/complainant.
c. Subsequently, on 13th March, 2020, in order to develop the said land as per the proposal of the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO), a portion of the land was exchanged between HIDCO and M/s Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
8

(2022) 7 SCC 124;

9

(2023) 5 SCC 360;

10

2024 SCC OnLine SC 171;

11

2024 SCC OnLine SC 339 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268;

13

(2001) 3 SCC 513.

8

cheques amounting to Rs. 1.01 crore in favour of M/s Intimate promoters Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners' family-owned company. The family of Mr. Piyush Bhagat holds shares in M/s. Harmony Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., and it was agreed that development would be undertaken through M/s BKS Infraprojects LLP, an entity of the complainant. A further sum of Rs. 1 crore was allegedly paid on 16th September, 2014 to the Petitioners. Subsequently, on 13 th March, 2020, a portion of the said land was exchanged between the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) and M/s Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to facilitate development in accordance with HIDCO's proposal.

10. The circumstances were known to the de facto complainant. The main allegation of the opposite party no. 2 is that the accused persons had sold the land to a third party without notifying him, and also did not refund Rs. 2.01 Crores. However, petitioners negated both the allegations by contending that Rs. 2.01 Crores had already been refunded and the property was exchanged with HIDCO for the purpose of development, when the opposite party no. 2 failed to perform his obligation under the MOU from the very inception, as a result, the project never commenced for development. Due to the delay in the commencement of development of the property, the petitioners suffer a huge loss. The petitioners had no other option but to exchange the land with HIDCO so that their property may be developed in due course.

10

14. Having no alternative, the petitioners have admittedly exchanged part of the land with HIDCO on 13th March, 2020, to develop the said land as per the proposal of HIDCO. The portion of the land was exchanged between HIDCO and M/s. Intimate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that subsequently, on 2 nd March, 2021, the petitioners had sold the said land to a third party by deed of conveyance. Due to such a changed scenario, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners, accusing them for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of IPC read with Sections 34/120B of IPC. The allegation of the opposite party no. 2 is two folds. Firstly, the land was sold to a third party without notifying or informing the complainant and secondly, it was done without refunding the sum of Rs. 2.01 Crores taken from M/s. BKS Infraprojects LLP thereby misappropriated the said sum.