Dismissed

Maharashtra Investors Action Council v. Busybiz Network Solution (P). Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2006WP/1948/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL praying for CBI transfer and direction to distribute seized property. It held facts did not justify CBI transfer; directed Police to proceed under law. Law prohibits directing proportionate property distribution to investors.

What did the court decide?

Neither transfer to CBI nor direction to distribute property to investors granted; petition dismissed.

Maharashtra Investors Action Council Vs Busybiz Network… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1948 OF 2005

¶4

Maharashtra Investors Action Council. ] .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. M/s. Busybiz Network Solutions (P) ]
Ltd. & 22 Ors.] .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. P. Janardana with Jaya Nair for the petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. Usha Kejriwal, APP, for the respondent No.23-State.

¶9

CORAM: R.M. LODHA &

¶10

ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 18TH JANUARY, 2006

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

.Heard Mr. P. Janardana, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kejriwal the learned

¶14

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.23.

¶15

2.The petitioner has prayed for the following

¶16

reliefs:

¶17

"A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to transfer this case in toto, to the CBI for
a thorough enquiry and arrest rest of the 18
accused persons.

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
permit or direct the Mumbai Crime Branch to
distribute the property proportionately among
the investors (Petitioners) of the above
company after the valid auction of the
sealed/seized immovable property from Kerala
which belongs to the main accused and his
brother (respondent No.2 and 3).

¶20

OR

¶21

That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit
or direct the Mumbai Crime Branch to hand
over these immovable property (value of 7.5
crores of rupees) to the Petitioner’s
registered action council for the purpose of
a valid auction and distribution among the
whole investors."

¶22

3.Having considered the matter thoughtfully, we
are of the view that none of the prayers made in the
Writ Petition deserves to be granted. The facts that
have come before us do not justify the transfer of
petitioner’s case to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. Needless however to say that FIR No.48
of 2004 registered with the Mumbai Crime Branch has to
be taken to a logical conclusion and the concerned
Police authorities have to proceed in the matter in
accordance with law.

¶23

4.As regards the second prayer made by the
petitioner to permit or direct the Mumbai Crime Branch
to distribute the property proportionately amongst the

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

investors, we are afraid, the law does not permit such
direction to be issued.

¶26

5.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

Sd/-
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

¶28

Sd/-
[ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

¶29

[srpasha@hc]

Maharashtra Investors Action Council v. Busybiz Network Solution (P). Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Investors Action Council v. Busybiz Network Solution (P). Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Harsha H. Shah Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

G.Sukumari and Ors. Vs the Bank of Tokyo Ltd.and Ors.

G.Sukumari Vs the Bank of Tokyo Ltd.and Ors.

Mehboob Dawoodsaab Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Balaram Kantha Patil and Ors. Vs Maaharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mehboob Dawoodsaab Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.