Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sharp industries in Hasmukh Tarachand Sheth And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 April, 2018Matching Fragments
3. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are brothers. The Petitioner No.5 is the son of the Petitioner No.2 and the Petitioner No.6 is the son of the Petitioner No.1. The subject-matter of the FIR is the transaction between the first informant's firm and the 3 entities namely M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd., M/s. Lalit Polyester Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ridhi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. It is the Petitioners' case that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 resigned from the Directorship of Sharp Industries Ltd. from 06/12/2010. The Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 similarly resigned from being Directors of Sharp Industries Ltd. from 21/03/2015 and 24/12/2013 respectively. The Petitioner No.5 was a Director of M/s. Lalit Polyester Pvt. Ltd. and resigned on 27/01/2014. The Petitioner No.6 is the Director of M/s. Ridhi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. since 20/03/2010.
8. Before referring to the submissions made by the parties, it is necessary to advert to the contents of the FIR. The FIR was initially registered on 15/06/2016 with Marine Drive Police Station vide C.R.No.195 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC and thereafter was transferred to EOW where it was registered as C.R.No.58 of 2016 under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 120B of the IPC. The Respondent No.2, in his FIR, has stated that their firm was a distributor of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd., Delhi. Around March 2011, the Petitioner No.1 contacted the Respondent No.2 and told him that he was the Managing Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. and they were in need of Chromo Paper for packaging. The Petitioner No.1 visited the Respondent No.2's office at Nariman Point, Mumbai and informed him that M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. used to supply packaging material to various 'gutkha' companies and their business was growing. The Petitioner No.1 invited the Respondent No.2 to his office for discussion for purchase of Chromo Paper. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2 visited the Petitioner No.1's office. The Petitioner No.1 told the Respondent No.2 that their company was in need of 500 URS 5 of 26 6 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18 Metric Tonne (MT) of Chromo Paper. On 05/04/2011, the Respondent No.2 received an email sent by the Petitioner No.4 placing a trial order of 3 MT of Chromo Paper. In the said email, it was mentioned that the Petitioner No.1 was the Managing Director of the said company. The Respondent No.2 supplied the material and the bill was promptly paid on that occasion. In December 2011, the Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 met the Respondent No.2 and his uncle in the presence of the officers of the aforementioned Ballarpur Industries. In the meeting, the Petitioner No.1 told the Respondent No.2 that they wanted 1000 MT paper worth Rs.10 Crores. The Petitioner No.1 also assured of prompt payment. From February 2012, the Petitioner No.1 started placing big orders and also requested to supply paper to other two companies i.e. M/s. Lalit Polyester Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ridhi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. as well. Between March 2012 to July 2012, the Chromo Paper worth about Rs.8 Crores was supplied by the Respondent No.2's firm. However, the payment was not made by the Petitioners and their companies. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the Petitioner No.1 started avoiding the Respondent No.2 and even changed his office without informing the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 found out the URS 6 of 26 7 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18 new office of the Petitioner No.1 and again asked for his outstanding dues. Even at that time, further assurance was given to him but the amount was not paid. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 issued 9 cheques of Punjab National Bank and Federal Bank amounting to Rs.4,66,12,785/-. However, these cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 sent a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act to M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. and its Directors. At that time, the Respondent No.2 was informed that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 were not the Directors of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 was convinced that the Petitioners had no intention to make the payment of the dues and were cheating him. According to the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner No.1 falsely represented that he was the Managing Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. when he had already resigned. According to the Respondent No.2, all the Petitioners made false representations, induced the Respondent No.2 to supply huge quantity of Chromo Paper, made false representation, deliberately gave cheques which were not honoured and thus caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.7,17,09,029/-.
URS 15 of 26
16 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18
17. Mr. Ponda submitted that, this was not a case of mere breach of contract but the ingredients of all the offences alleged were clearly made out. He invited our attention to the email sent by the Petitioner No.4 to the Respondent No.2 on 05/04/2011 wherein a purchase order for the Chromo Art Paper for trial was placed with the Respondent No.2. The purchase order was placed on behalf of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. In the said email, it was clearly mentioned that the email was sent with reference to the visit at the Respondent No.2's office by the Petitioner No.1. Significantly, the Petitioner No.1 was described as 'our Managing Director'. Mr. Ponda submitted that even as per the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 had resigned from M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. before that and yet he was described as the 'Managing Director' of the said company. According to Mr.Ponda, this fortifies the submission of the Respondent No.2 that he was misled because of the misrepresentation right at the inception that the Petitioner No.1 was the Managing Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. Mr. Ponda invited our attention to the email dated 06/04/2011 which was sent by the Petitioner No.1 himself for placing the purchase order for 65 GSM Chromo Art Paper. After the first trial order was fulfilled by the Respondent No.2's firm, the Petitioners URS 16 of 26 17 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18 placed huge orders when they had no intention to make the full payment in respect of the same. This, according to Mr. Ponda, was a clear inducement amounting to cheating.
18. Mr. Ponda further submitted that certain false emails and placing purchase orders when the Petitioner No.1 was not in-charge of affairs of M/s.Sharp Industries Ltd. amounted to forgery of documents and using such documents for the purpose of cheating. Therefore, according to Mr. Ponda, all the cognizable offences were clearly made out from the FIR. Therefore, the said FIR could not be quashed.
19. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ponda relied on a few Judgments. He first referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj Vs. State NCT of Delhi and others8. In the said case, the complainant had supplied goods to the accused. The purchase price promised by the accused was not paid to the complainant. It was alleged in the said complaint that the accused had induced the complainant to believe that he was a genuine dealer but his intentions were not clear. In that case also, the 8 AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1216 (1) URS 17 of 26 18 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18 argument was advanced that it was purely a commercial transaction and no offence was made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the submissions in paragraph nos.10 to 13 of the Judgment thus :