$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + EX.P. 334/2010 M/S VALUE ADVISORY SERVICES ..... Decree Holder Through: Mr Arshdeep Singh, Mr Hitesh Rai and Mr Aditya Chopra, Advocates. versus M/S ZTE CORPORATION ..... Judgement Debtor Through: Mr Vijay Kaundal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 07.05.2018 Crl. M.A. 1747/2012 1. The Judgment Debtor (ZTE) has filed the present application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter ‘CrPC’), inter alia, praying that Mr Sanjay Bhalla, who had filed an affidavit in support of the petition for enforcement of the arbitral award, be prosecuted for giving false evidence. 2. In the affidavit accompanying the petition, Mr Bhalla had represented himself as the authorized signatory of the petitioner company/decree holder (VAS). It is the case of ZTE that VAS was not in existence on 29.12.2006 as its name was struck off from the Register of Companies. It is, therefore, claimed that Mr Bhalla had falsely claimed that he was an authorised signatory of VAS, which was a non-existent company on that date. 3. It has been explained that the management of VAS had applied under the Simplified Exit Scheme for having the name of VAS removed from the Register of Companies under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter, the Management of VAS had decided to revive the said company as an arbitral award had been granted in its favour. Admittedly, VAS was revived despite opposition from ZTE. It is also settled law that once the company is revived, its revival dates back to the date it was struck off from the Register. Thus, VAS is deemed to be in existence throughout including the period when it was not on the Register of Members. 4. It is also relevant to note that this issue was also one of the principal issues agitated by ZTE to resist the enforcement of the arbitral award. By a judgment delivered on 03.07.2017 in M/s Value Advisory Services v. M/s ZTE Corporation: Ex.P. 198/2012, this Court had rejected ZTE’s contention that the arbitral award could not be enforced on account of VAS being removed from the Register of Members. In that case, ZTE had contended that the impugned award was obtained by concealment of facts and misrepresentation regarding the legal status of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned award was nullity. In those proceedings, VAS had fairly conceded that the Board of Directors had acted in an erroneous manner. This was noted by this Court and the claim that VAS had played any fraud was rejected. This Court had also observed that there was no illegal or illegitimate claim that was sought to be pursued by VAS by any concealment or deception. 5. The judgment of this Court was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. 6. In view of the finding that VAS was not pursuing any illegitimate claims and had acted bonafide, it would not serve the interest of justice to entertain the present petition or to direct an enquiry to be made. 7. It is also well settled that the procedure under Section 340 CrPC can be resorted to only if the Court is of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which appears to have been committed in relation to the proceedings of the Court (See: Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah : 2005 (4) SCC 740). 8. In the present case, ZTE has not prevailed in its objections to the enforcement of the arbitral award and the same has, concededly, been enforced. This Court is not satisfied that any interest of justice would be served by directing any enquiry as prayed for. Therefore, the application is dismissed. 9. EA(OS) 36/2018 also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 07, 2018 RK