Allowed

Flawless Diamond (India) Limited and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Poddar Sone of Ram Karan Poddar and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2013WP/1763/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a respondent against Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. for failure to furnish documents. Finding no criminal intention and noting a Company Law Board mandate for inspection, the court directed the petitioner to pay travel expenses to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 2447/SS/2011) quashed; petitioner directed to pay Rs.15,000 to respondent as travel expenses.

Flawless Diamond (India) Limited and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Poddar Sone of Ram Karan Poddar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp1763-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1763 OF 2013

¶5

Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd. & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Anil Kumar Poddar & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Ms. Usha R. Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioenrs. Mr. Anil Kumar Poddar, Respondent No.1, present in person. Mr. D. P. Adsule, A.P.P. for Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶8

DATED : JULY 1, 2013.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard respondent No.1 Anil Kumar Poddar, in-

¶11

person present. He accepts having received inspection. However, it was belated.

¶12

2 I quite see the inspection of the documents of the company/petitioner were given but the respondent was to make relentless efforts. The contravention of provision, attracts fine amount.

¶13

1/3

¶14

wp1763-13

¶15

3 Considering the nature of the controversies, the learned counsel for the Petitioners of her volition suggest paying certain amount to make travel expenses of the Respondent which was quoted at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only)

¶16

4 The respondents says, he has to travel for getting the documents all along from Kolkata and for around 15 to 18 times he has attended even the company law board, Mumbai.

¶17

5 Since the Company Law Board, Mumbai directed the respondent company to give inspection in terms of Section 163(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by order dated 22^nd December, 2011 and it was so communicated to respondent No.1, primarily the element of criminality is defused and deflated. There was no ill intention on the part of the petitioner to avoid the legal proceedings. The proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 vide C.C. No. 2447/SS/2011 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 18^th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai are quashed and set aside. However, the petitioner shall pay Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) to respondent no.1 Anil Kumar Poddar by pay order or a bankers cheque up to 29^th July,

¶18

2/3

¶19

wp1763-13

¶20

2013 as travel expenses. Writ Petition is allowed to the extent as

¶21

above.

¶22

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶23

3/3

Flawless Diamond (India) Limited and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Poddar Sone of Ram Karan Poddar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Flawless Diamond (India) Limited and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Poddar Sone of Ram Karan Poddar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrasekaran Kalyansundaram Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anand Chidambar Dixit Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Suraj Rupachand Kanojia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh R. Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jeevan Punamchand Mehta Vs Shrilekha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh Ltd. and Anr.

Atul Nathalal Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra