High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 06 GUJ CK 0026

Nilesh Ramesbhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 4 June 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.N. Karia, J
CASE NUMBER
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 9268 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 336 words

B.N. Karia, J

Rule returnable on 16.7.2021.

Mr.Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule for the respondentÂ​State.

Heard Mr.Jayant Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that an agreement was executed between the applicant and the first informant and the

applicant is granted rights to carry on the franchise business and to use the shop in accordance with the terms and conditions of the franchise

agreement. The first informant was under obligation to send daily sale report in respect of the franchise sale to the customers. The first informant was

not regularly sending the daily sales reports and was embezzling funds in order to profit from the franchise agreement illegally. The applicant was

entitled to review the first informant's business regularly as per the clause 6 of the agreement. It was noticed by the applicant that the first informant

was consistently breaching the important terms and conditions of the franchise agreement since 2.4.2019 and therefore, the applicant issued a legal

notice dated 21.2.2021 terminating the franchise agreement on the ground of violation and breach of conditions of the franchise agreement. The reply

was also issued by the first informant that the applicant came to audit the records along with his staff members to the shop of the first informant and

the first informant is clearly stating that the applicant and his staff members had introduced themselves as GST Officers. Further the CCTV footage is

also clear that the applicant has a video recording, wherein the staff permits the representatives to enter the premise and they are collecting data and

are conducting the audit at the shop. The applicant has wrongly involved in the present offence with a view to pressurize.

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant, the applicant shall not be arrested till the returnable date by the

Investigating Officer and the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.