AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
This writ application has been filed by the petitioner Company for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent State to
release the amount of Rs.1,72,62,447.50 with due interest thereon, which was withheld on the pretext of a criminal proceeding against the Directors of
the petitioner Company. This writ application has been filed through one Gajanand Bhalotia, who is one of the Directors of the petitioner Company and
he has also sworn the affidavit in the case.
The petitioner Company was allotted the work orders for fabrication and supply of Mobile Medical Units on the chassis purchased from TATA
Motors. It is stated in the writ application that though the mobile medical units were supplied by the Company, but a criminal case was lodged against
the petitioner Company, its Directors and others, including the Govt. officials, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, and Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, abuse of official
position etc., and on the pretext of the pendency of the criminal case against the Directors of the petitioner Company, the aforesaid amount was
withheld W.P. (C) No. 360 of 2015 by the State respondents. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the C.B.I. in R.C. Case No.
11(A)/2009/AHD/R, which submitted the charge-sheet after investigation. It is stated in the writ application that charge-sheet was not submitted
against the Company, though it was submitted against its Directors and others.
It is further stated in the writ application that the Directors of the petitioner company filed application for discharge, which was rejected by order
dated 08.03.2013, passed by the CBI Court Ranchi, and Charge was framed against the Directors of the Company for the offences under Sections
120-B, 420, 477-A, of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Directors moved this Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 262, 230, 231, 232 and 238 of 2013, challenging the aforesaid order dated 08.03.2013, as
also the order framing the charge. Those Criminal Revisions were allowed by a common order dated 10.01.2014, by this Court, and the order framing
the charge against the Directors had been quashed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner Company has preferred this writ application, praying for
the release of the amount withheld by the respondents, along with interest.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the criminal case against the Directors had been quashed, there was no
impediment in making the payment for the supplies made by the Company. Learned counsel has also submitted that against this Company no charge-
sheet was ever submitted and accordingly, for the acts of its Directors, the Company being a separate juristic person, cannot be allowed to suffer.
Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Criminal
Revision No. 262 of 2013 and analogous cases had been challenged by the State and the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order. Accordingly, all
the Directors of the Company are now facing trial in the C.B.I. Court. Learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of the trial this writ
application cannot be allowed.
The fact that the order dated 10.01.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 262 of 2013 and analogous cases has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and all the Directors of the Company are now facing trial in the W.P. (C) No. 360 of 2015 C.B.I. Court, is not disputed by learned counsel for
the petitioner, rather this fact has been admitted by him.
Accordingly, I find that for the same transaction the Directors of the Company are facing the criminal trial. The submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner Company is a separate juristic person and accordingly, it cannot be allowed to suffer for the alleged misdeeds of its
Directors, cannot be accepted. The company had been allotted the work order only due to the actions of its Directors, and not independent of the
actions of the Directors, who are facing the trial before the C.B.I. Court. If for the same action the criminal case is going on in the C.B.I. Court, in my
considered view, on the pretext that the Company is a separate juristic person, this writ application cannot be allowed.
Since the matter is pending before the competent criminal Court against the Directors, no payment can be directed to be made in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction, unless the Directors are exonerated from the charges after full fledged trial.
In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which accordingly, stands dismissed.
The petitioner Company is however, given the liberty to renew the prayer, in case the criminal trial ends in the acquittal of the Directors of the
Company.
The interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 2262 of 2020, has been filed for impleding CBI as a party respondent in the case. In view the
foregoing discussions, I do not find any occasion for the same. Accordingly, the interlocutory application, also stands dismissed.