Calcutta High Court
East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs Niladri Bhattacharjee And Ors on 7 January, 2025
OD-2
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS/1/2025
IA No. GA/1/2025
EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD
-VS-
NILADRI BHATTACHARJEE AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date: January 7, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratul Das, Adv.
Mr. Amar Dudhwewala, Adv.
Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Saheli Mukherjee, Adv.
...for the defendant nos.1, 2. 3, 4 & 6
Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv.
...for the defendant no.5
The Court: Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate, is
appearing for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee, learned Advocate, is appearing for the
defendant nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Ms. Ankita Singh, learned Advocate, is appearing for the
defendant no.5.
The petitioner is one of the oldest pharmaceutical companies in
the Eastern India which has expanded its business over the years and
presently the company is having a turnover of Rs. 249,00,00,000/-. The
petitioner has employed over 1,500 persons which includes about 800 sale
representatives. The petitioner manufactures diverse medicines and
2
medical products which are sold all over the country. For the purpose of
marketing and sale, about 800 medical representatives have been employed
by the petitioner. The said medical representatives operate in different
parts of the country under the zonal/branch offices.
The respondent no. 1 is a clerk who enjoyed the confidence of the
management of the petitioner. The respondent no. 6 is the wife of the
respondent no. 2 and the daughter of the respondent no. 3. The respondent
no. 2 to 6 have acted in connivance and conspiracy with the respondent no.
1 for the purpose of perpetrating fraud upon the petitioner. It is alleged
that the respondent no. 1 while preparing the excel sheet in the petitioner's
system has falsely entered the name of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and
fictitious travel expenditure to them between the period of June 2021 to
October 2023 and a total amount Rs. 3,59,56,713/- has been shown as
travelling expenses.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
nos. 2 to 5 are not employees of the petitioner and have not availed
expenditure which is reimbursable to any of them and the name of the
respondent no. 2 to 5 were falsely included in the excel sheet in the system
of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 only of the purpose of siphoning
off the amount of the petitioner company.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 in
connivance with respondent no. 2 and 5 has defrauded the petitioners by
defalcating the amount of Rs. 3,59,56,713/-.
It is submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the
suspicion raised due to the exorbitant reimbursement expenses to the
medical representative, the Chief Financial Officer of the petitioner caused
preliminary inquiry and it was found that an amount of Rs. 3,26,00,000/-
has been fraudulently taken out from the account of the petitioner
company. Upon discovery of the said fact, an auditor has been appointed
and after the audit it was found that to the respondent no. 1 in connivance
with respondent nos. 2 to 6 have defalcated an amount of Rs.
3,59,56,713/-.
Subsequent to the receipt of the report, the petitioner company
has made a complaint to the police authority and accordingly an FIR had
been chalked out and during the inquiry, the police authorities prima facie
found that the respondent no. 1 in connivance with the respondent no. 2 to
6 have committed fraud by defalcating an amount of Rs. 3,59,56,713/-.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the forwarding report submitted by the investigating officer before
the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta at the time of production
of the accused persons wherein it is categorically mentioned that during the
interrogation of the accused no. 5 on 11th December, 2024, the accused
person disclosed for having purchased another flat situated on the ground
floor of the premises number 351/1, Basudevpur Road under Jagadal P.S.
and Bhatpara Municipality and also under Naihati ADSR 24 Parganas
North was purchased with the proceeds of the crime embezzled from the
complainant in the name of Moumita Chowdhury from one Shipra
Mukherjee. It is also mentioned in the report that the accused persons have
also purchased gold ornaments from Lakhi Jewellers, Senco Gold,
Barrackpore and another New Maa Jewellars of Shyamnagar and kept
safely with the mother of Susmita Chowdhury.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the preliminary
internal report, audit report and from the police report it is categorically
prima facie proved that the respondents have defalcated an amount of Rs.
3,59,56,713/- and there is every apprehension that they will alienate the
said property and as such he has prayed for an ad interim injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating or dealing with the property as
mentioned in paragraph 21 (i) (ii) of the present application.
Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant nos. 1,
2, 3, 4 and 6 submits that the allegation made in the said application is
totally false and baseless. The petitioner has relied upon the police report
which is the third party report which cannot be taken into consideration at
the time of grant of interim order.
Counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 has submitted
that the defendants may be given an opportunity to file their affidavit in
opposition so that they can deal with the allegations made in the present
application.
Counsel for the defendant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 submits the
internal audit report and the audit report which the petitioner is relying
upon is only after the police complaint and in the line of the police
complaint only to corroborate the complaint made to the police authority,
the report has been submitted and as such the same also cannot be taken
into consideration.
Learned Counsel for the defendant no. 5 submits that the
defendant no.5 is not at all involved for committing any fraud as alleged by
the plaintiff in the present application. She submits that she has no
connection with the plaintiff company and she may be allowed to file
affidavit in opposition by dealing the allegation made in the present
application.
Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case
Tata Chemicals Limited Vs. Kshitish Bardhan Chunilal Nath and Others
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 3343 and submits that there cannot be
any absolute proposition that in a money claim, no order of injunction or
attachment or receiver could be made. He submits that Order XXXVIII to
Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure does no restrict the power of the
Court to pass any order that the Court is empowered to pass just because it
is a money claim.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Considering the above, this Court finds that the defendant no. 1
is the employee of the plaintiff company for the last several years and the
plaintiff company has trusted upon the respondent no. 1. The respondent
no. 1 is working as a clerk and is preparing the excel sheet in the petitioner
system and alleged to have been falsely entered the name of the respondent
no. 2 to 5 precisely to claim travel expenditure. The claim of the petitioner
corroborated with the interim audit report as well as the report of the
auditor and the forwarding report of the investigating officer wherein the
defendants have submitted that they have purchased landed property from
the defalcated amount as well as the gold ornaments.
Considering the interim audit report, audit report as well as the
forwarding report of the police, this Court finds that the petitioner has
made out the prima facie case and balance of convenience and
inconvenience in their favour.
This Court finds that if at this stage, an ad interim injunction is
not passed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable injury and there is every
chance that defendants will alienate and dispose of the property which they
have purchased from the defalcated amount as mentioned in the police
report.
In view of the above the defendants are restrained from dealing,
disposing, alienating, transferring or encumbering their assets and
properties as mentioned in the paragraph 21 (i) (ii) of the present
application till 7th February, 2025.
As the defendants are appearing in the matter and have received
the copy of the application along with the documents, the respondents are
directed to file their affidavit in opposition within two weeks, reply thereto,
if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
Let this matter appear on 7th February, 2025.
(KRISHNA RAO, J)
DB
