Mohammad
Shafa-At Khan and Ors Vs. The National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors [2007] Insc 794 (2 August 2007)
Dr.
Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain
CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3317 of 2004) Dr. ARIJIT
PASAYAT, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Delhi High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants.
3.
Challenge in the petition before the High Court was to the order passed by a
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the
appellants.
4.
Grievances in short were that one M/s Habib Investments Ltd. incorporated under
the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Act') advertised in various
newspapers inviting the general public to subscribe in various Fixed Deposits
and saving schemes. Since the schemes were very lucrative, many innocent
persons subscribed to the schemes.
Various
persons were appointed as agents on commission basis to collect the money from
subscribers. Many people who were to get money complained of cheating stating
that on the date of maturity, the certificates issued were not honoured.
First
Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Lahori Gate, Delhi. Initially, the application was
filed for appointment of Receiver in respect of M/s Habib Group of Companies
and to make an order to attach the properties. Five properties were attached. A
public notice was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing
attachment of the properties. Grievance was made that notwithstanding the order
of attachment the properties were either disposed of or dealt with in a manner
contrary to the order of attachment.
5. The
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the application filed
by the appellants on the ground that they had no locus standi to file a
revision petition. The High Court by a single line order dismissed the petition
filed before it.
6.
During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the non
official respondents that they are willing to dispose off the properties to
meet the demands of the creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that after having violated various orders passed, one of the non- official
respondents has now come to dispose off the properties to meet the demands of
creditors and to wipe out the liabilities. Ultimately, the people who are the
creditors have to get back their money. Without entering into the matters
relating to the commission of contempt, it would be appropriate for the
concerned Court to work out the modalities as to how the properties can be sold
to get the highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities
can be discharged.
7.
Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal directing the concerned Court to work out
the details and the modalities after hearing learned counsel for the parties so
that the amounts due to various persons towards creditors and liabilities to be
discharged, can be paid.
8. The
appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Back
Pages: 1 2
