Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is, prima facie, erroneous and deserves to be stayed and whether the petition deserves to be admitted.

4. A brief look into the facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner and not denied by the prosecution, are that the company i.e. M/s Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. (shortly referred to as 'M/s ZDPL') had been incorporated in the year 1991 and was engaged in engineering, design and development. The petitioner is the Director of this company. M/s Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (shortly referred to as 'M/s RIPL') is stated to be one of the holding companies for M/s ZDPL whereas the complainant Manindra Chandrasen is the lessee of the property situated at AB Road, Indore and M/s RIPL is stated to be the owner of the property. M/s RIPL had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the complainant under which the disputed property was to be developed by the RIPL and the RIPL had agreed to pay a sum of money to the complainant and had given approximately Rs.1,31,00,000/- to him. M/s ZDPL had been availing credit facilities from various banks with the consent of the complainant Manindra Chandrasen, who had issued consent letter for the same.