Allowed

Ore Holding Ltd. v. C.G. Holdings Ltd.

Madras HC6 Dec 2024CRL MP/10592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seven persons seeking impleadment as necessary parties in pending criminal petitions where a compromise was reached between the accused company and complainant court held that former shareholders are proper parties to be heard.

What did the court decide?

All criminal miscellaneous petitions for impleadment were allowed and the registry directed to amend files and list the original petitions.

Ore Holding Ltd. Vs C.G. Holdings Ltd. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.10592 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23682 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.10595 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.22369 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.10593 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23692 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.10594 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23694 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.10596 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23681 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.10597 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23674 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17443 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.22369 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17444 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23674 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17445 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23681 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17446 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23682 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17447 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23692 of 2023 Crl.M.P.No.17448 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.23694 of 2023

¶2

P.VELMURUGAN, J

¶3

The criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed to implead the petitioners as one of the respondents in the criminal original petitions.

¶4

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the real victims. The present original petitions have been filed to quash the CC.No.20 of 2020 pending on the file of the Additional Special Court for Trial of Cases related to members of Parliament and members of Legislative assembly of Tamil Nadu, by recording compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused company. The said C.C cannot be quashed without the consent of the real victims. The petitioners are necessary parties and they have to be heard before passing the order in the criminal original petitions.

¶5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶6

The learned counsel for the respondent/accused company submitted

¶7

that already the case against the new directors /accused were quashed. As far as the company is concerned, the C.C is pending. At the relevant point of time, the petitioners are neither directors nor the shareholders of the company. Since the parties had already entered into a compromise C.C.s which are pending are to be heard and quashed.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶9

Admittedly, some of accused filed quash petitions and the same were allowed. Now the Company is the only accused. At this stage, the said company entered into compromise with the petitioners. Further, the petitioners are also shareholders once upon a time, however ,they are not directors at the relevant point of time.

¶10

Pending O.P now the petitioners come forward with the present petitions for impleading themselves as party and to give opportunity to them to make their submissions. On a reading of allegations, it is found that forgery of

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

document is involvled in the matter. However, that can be decided only by the

¶13

trial court by conducting trial. The question to be decided in the above petitions is as to whether the petitioners have to be impleaded or not. Since the petitioners are also shareholders of the respondent/company, they are proper and necessary parties to be heard. Hence, all the Criminal Miscellaneious petitions are allowed.

¶14

Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment and list all

¶15

criminal original petitions on 02.01.2025.

¶16

06.12.2024

¶17

mfa

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.VELMURUGAN, J

mfa

06.12.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ore Holding Ltd. v. C.G. Holdings Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ore Holding Ltd. v. C.G. Holdings Ltd.

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

Subramani Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Selvarasu Vs the State Rep by

Selvi Vs the State Rep by

Abdul Wahab Vs Inspector of Police

S.Subramani Vs the State, Rep.by

Sasikumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu