Datasets:

Sarvesh2003

/

Legal_audio_dataset3

like 0

This application has been filed with the following prayers: "(a) clarify that order dated 23-09-2016 passed by this hon€ble court is not a direction to cbi to register a preliminary enquiry (pe) rather the direction was to file a preliminary report regarding the settlement between the petitioner and m/s akshata mercantile private limited.

(b) direct the cbi to quash/stop the preliminary enquiry (pe) bearing number pe221/2016/e0008 dated 05-12-2016 against the respondents as the same has been registered without jurisdiction of the cbi.

(c) during the pendency of the application cbi may be restrained to convert the preliminary enquiry (pe) into a regular case (rc) as the counterblast to the present application by the respondent no.1&2. ..." 52.

The honorable supreme court, vide order dated 25.08.2023 was pleased to direct to hear cm appl 26480/2020 expeditiously. Pursuant to the said direction, the hearing of the matter was preponed from 19.10.2023 to 19.09.2023 and the matter has been heard.

53. On 12.10.2015, this court was inclined to order an independent investigation as the manner in which the petitioner and the respondents had entered into a settlement in proceedings under section 138 of ni act was seemingly □not above board€.

However, learned senior counsel for the respondents had sought deferment of the order directing investigation and had stated that the respondents would like to reconcile their accounts with the petitioner and would make payments of outstanding amount, if any. On this date, the respondent number 2 was present in court.the state trading corporation of india ...

Versus ms sheela abhay lodha @ ors. On 18 december, 2023 Order dated 12.10.2015, the respondents have only paid rs.10.50 crores to the petitioner.

Further, it recorded that in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent number 2, the respondents have contended that they have made excess payment to the petitioner and have to recover a sum of rupees 2,28,39,832.44/-.

However, the learned asg stated that rupees 1,041,872,755/- was still due and payable as on 30.04.2016, in pursuance to the settlement. 55.

On 23.09.2016, this court took a prima facie view that the conduct of the petitioner and the respondents was □dubious€ and □not above board€, and directed a cbi examination of the entire transaction between the parties. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "8.

Keeping in view the divergent stands as well as the wide gap in the amounts due and payable between the parties and the 'vague' settlement, this court is of the view that is not possible to amicably resolve the matter. 9.

Consequently, keeping in view the order dated 12 thoctober, 2015, this court directs the central bureau of investigation (cbi) to examine the entire transaction between the parties including the way the settlement offer was accepted by the petitioner-public sector undertaking. 10.

Let a preliminary report be filed by the cbi before the next date of hearing. A copy of this order along with entire paper book shall be forwarded to the cbi by learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week.

Both parties are directed to furnish whatever additional documents and filed the cbi asks for and to extend full cooperation to the cbi." 56.

Pursuant to the said order, the cbi conducted an inquiry and filed a preliminary enquiry registration report dated 05.12.2016. The cbi, as per its procedure, registered a preliminary enquiry bearing number pe221/2016/e0008. 57.

After the pe was registered, the cbi conducted inquiry and submitted report dated 31.01.2017. It found that there were serious violations regarding following of guidelines by the officers of petitioner-stc while sanctioning credit facility to the respondents.

The cbi also found serious irregularities amounting to commission of criminal misconduct involving officials of petitioner-stc and the respondents. 58.

It is argued by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that in view of the direction issued by this court for submission of preliminary report by the cbi and subsequent submission of the same, the role of cbi ought to have come to an end.

As per the preliminary enquiry bearing number pe221/2016/e0008 dated 05.12.2016, the complainant is shown as "as per delhi high court order dated 23.09.2016".

The said registration of pe, it is argued, was not the direction given by this court and the cbi misused the said direction to register a pe.the state trading corporation of india ... Versus ms sheela abhay lodha @ ors.

On 18 december, 2023 Respondent no.1 ought to be protected from the purview of the same as the main case from which the present contempt proceedings have arisen has been quashed against respondent number 1, and thus, no proceedings ought to be initiated against respondent number 1. 60.

I am of the view that the order dated 23.09.2016 is only a direction to the cbi to look into the transactions between the parties which, this court, has found "dubious" and "not above board".

This court has not directed or circumscribed the nature of inquiry or the manner in which the inquiry is to be conducted by the cbi.

The court, while passing the order dated 23.09.2016, was very much within its powers to flag issues which seem to be dubious and not inspiring confidence, especially when a psu is involved dealing with government funds.

The orders dated 12.10.2015 and 23.09.2016 are only the trigger points pursuant to which the cbi has conducted investigation into the transactions between petitioner-stc and the respondents. 61.

For the said reasons, i am not inclined to entertain the present application and the same is dismissed. 62. The cbi is entitled to conduct the inquiry and proceed in accordance with law. Cont.cas(c) 233/2015& cm appl.

26875/2020 (modification) 63.

The facts in the present contempt are similar to cont.cas(c) 232/2015, except that the alleged contempt is of the order dated 04.08.2014 before the learned mm in cc number 3453/1.

On account of parity, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present contempt case is disposed of in terms of the judgment in cont.cas(c) 232/2015. 64. In the present case also, i am of the view that the respondent number 2 is guilty of contempt and must be punished accordingly. 65.

The respondent number 2 is given 4 weeks to file a reply to show-cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt for non-compliance of the undertaking given before the learned mm on 04.08.2014. 66. For cm appl.

26875/2020, the order of cm appl. 26480/2020 in cont.cas(c) 232/2015 is to be read as the order in this application also. 67.

List for further proceedings on 29.02.2024, on which date the respondent number 2 shall remain present in court. Jasmeet singh, j december 18, 2023 skmthe state trading corporation of india ... Versus ms sheela abhay lodha @ ors. On 18 december, 2023