Delhi High Court
Rohan Mehta vs Shri V.K. Sharma & Ors. on 30 April, 2012
Author: Manmohan
33 & 34
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
33.
+ CCP(CO.) 17/2007 IN CO. PET. 265/1998
ROHAN MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Latika Choudhry, Advocate
with Ms. Urvashi Malhotra, Advocate.
versus
SHRI V.K. SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl and Mr. Manish Bishnoi,
Advocates for Official Liquidator.
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, ex-Director.
Mr. Abhinav Tandon, Advocate with
Mr. Sachin Mioddha and Mr. Rishab
Maheshwari, Advocates for respondents
No.13, 17 & 18.
Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.16.
Mr. N.K. Bhola, Additional Director,
SFIO with Mr. K.S. Nagar and Mr. P.K.
Khanna, Assistant Directors of SFIO.
Ms. Swati Setia, Advocate with
Mr. Srinjoy Banerjee, Advocate for RBI.
And
CCP(Co.) 17/2007& Co. Appl.867/2011 in Co. Pet. 265/1998 Page 1 of 23
34.
+ CO. APPL. 867/2011 IN CO.PET. 265/1998
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swati Setia and Mr. Srinjoy
Banerjee, Advocates.
versus
MS JVG FINANCE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl and Mr. Manish Bishnoi,
Advocates for Official Liquidator.
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, ex-Director.
Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Advocate with Mr. A.S.
Bakshi, Advocate for respondent
No.12/Mr. D.K. Kapur.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Saini, Advocate
for respondent No.21.
% Date of Decision: 30th APRIL, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL):
1. On 05th June, 1998, this Court while issuing notice in the
winding up petition at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India had
appointed a Provisional Liquidator in respect of M/s. JVG Finance
Limited, M/s. JVG Leasing Limited and M/s. JVG Securities Limited.
Later on, a Provisional Liquidator was appointed on 08th March, 2001
with respect to M/s. JVG Departmental Stores Limited.
2. On a report submitted by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and
Haryana, New Delhi, under Section 234 of the Companies Act, 1956
(for short „Act‟), the Central Government, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs had ordered an investigation into the affairs of JVG Finance
Limited under Section 235 of the Act by order dated 30th July, 2007.
The investigation had been ordered by the Central Government in
order to facilitate filing of misfeasance application against the ex-
management under Section 542/543 of the Act by the Official
Liquidator, if necessary.
3. On 11th February, 2010, the Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(for short „SFIO‟) submitted its report to the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs. In pursuance to the said report, the Official Liquidator filed
an application being Co. Appl. 867/2011.
4. In the meanwhile, this Court felt it necessary to examine the
SFIO report so as to gain clarity about the nature of disputes involved
in the present case. In fact, the winding up proceedings have been
pending since 1998 and no serious progress with regard to payment to
the innocent investors / depositors have so far been achieved largely
due to the fact that most of the properties of the Company in
liquidation are embroiled in multiple title disputes. The Court has also
kept in mind the urgency in view of the fact that with the passage of
time, the number of the small investors / claimants would further
dwindle which would altogether frustrate the very purpose of this
proceeding.
5. Since the report was voluminous, the Court requested the
concerned officers of SFIO team for a presentation of the report in the
open court after directing the Official Liquidator to inform all the
parties / stakeholder / counsels to remain present. In fact, a note to the
said effect was published in the daily cause list.
6. On 16th April, 2012 and 23rd April, 2012, Mr. N.K. Bhola,
Additional Director, SFIO, made a presentation to this Court with
regard to the SFIO report.
7. Today in Court, the arguments of Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned
counsel for Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, former Managing Director and
Promoter of the respondent company have also been heard.
8. After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the view that
certain immediate interim directions/orders are required to be passed
under Section 542(2) of the Act to preserve and protect the rights and
interests of the creditors and investors of the Companies in
liquidation.
9. Section 542(1) of the Act provides that if in the course of the
winding up of a Company, it "appears" that the business of the
Company has been carried out with the "intent to defraud the creditors
of the Company or for any other fraudulent purpose", then, on an
application made by either the Official Liquidator or any creditor or
any contributory, the Court can declare "such persons who were
parties to such fraudulent activities, personally liable, without any
limitation of liability, for all or any of the debts and liabilities of the
Company". Section 542(2) provides that the Court may give such
further direction as it thinks proper for giving effect to that
declaration.
10. This Court in the case of Col. M.R. Bhakshi vs. Fintra Systems
Ltd & Anr., 2008 (106) DRJ 166 invoked Section 542 to attach the
personal properties of the ex-Director and his wife after relying upon
a CBI report which prima facie revealed misappropriation of the funds
of the Company in liquidation by the persons involved. The following
interpretation of Section 542 of the Act and the reasons, namely, to
safeguard the interests of the creditors were laid down in the
abovesaid case with which this Court respectfully agrees:
"10. Having considered the respective submissions I am, as
at present advised, inclined to agree with the submissions of
Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Advocate the learned Amicus
Curiae. Keeping in view the purpose for which Section 542
has been enacted, and the fact that timely action is of the
essence, not only to prevent the presentation of a fiat
accompli by the fraudulent Directors of the company, but
also to provide relief to the victims of the fraud, it seems that
the establishment of the fraudulent conduct for attracting the
provision of Section 542 of the Companies Act does not
require the same standard of proof as in a criminal trial and
the rigours of the law of evidence as apply to a criminal trial
would not apply to establish the commission of fraudulent
acts and omissions by the Directors and Managers of a
company. It has also to be kept in mind that by its very
nature, fraud is not easy to establish. This is even more so,
when the fraudulent conduct is undertaken by the Directors
of a company, sitting in their own office, with a view to
defraud the creditors/investors who, though the victim of the
fraud, are not involved in the transactions which constitute
such conduct and may have no personal knowledge of the
same. In K.T. Dharanendrah v. R.T. Authority, AIR 1987 SC
1321, the Supreme Court, while dealing with a case under
the Customs Act, 1962, observed that "An economic offence
is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with
an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to
the Community. A disregard for the interest of the
Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting
the trust and faith of the Community in the system to
administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes
with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the
National Economy and National Interest."
11. I also find merit in the submission of Mr. Shakdher
that it is not necessary that each transaction/instance of
funds being siphoned or fraudulent conduct needs to be
established from the beginning to the end to invoke Section
542 of the Act. That is because it would be reasonable to
assume, that directors/managers who are shown to have
indulged in even a single act of fraud in the discharge of
their duties towards the company, its shareholders and
creditors, would have generally resorted to such conduct.
Traits of greed and dishonesty amongst men are known to
manifest whenever the opportunity presents itself. This is
even more true, when such conduct is displayed by the
relatively affluent members of society, as their conduct is not
driven by their need or undertaken in desperation. The
pattern that emerges from the conduct of Mr. & Mrs. Shakt
shows that their actions were focused on collecting funds in
the company from the public by promising huge returns, and
then siphoning them out in one way or another. That seems
to have been the true "business activity" of the promoter
Directors and Managers of the company. No other business
appears to have been conducted by the company with a view
to earn profits for the company, its shareholders and
creditors. In the aforesaid process, the entity of the company
has been misused and exploited.
12. From the aforesaid reports of the CBI, prima facie it
appears to me that this is a fit case for holding the Directors
of the company in liquidation personally liable, without any
limitation of liability. Section 542 is an exception to the
general rule that in a limited liability company, the liability
of the shareholders and Directors is limited. The purpose
and object of Section 542 is to catch up with the fraudulent
Directors and other persons responsible for defrauding the
creditors and shareholders of the company, who deliberately
conduct the affairs of the company in a manner as to rob the
company of its resources and allow it to bleed. Conduct,
which does not appear to be bona fide or innocent, or a mere
judgmental error, but which personally enriches the
Directors/managers of the company directly or indirectly at
the expense of the company, permits the Courts to take away
the protective shield that the directors/manager enjoy under
the law. The shield of corporate entity with limited liability
of the shareholders/Directors, provided by the law is not
meant to protect fraudsters. They cannot be permitted to
defraud the shareholders and the public through the
instrumentality of a corporate entity with limited liability,
and then mock at their shareholders and creditors and the
Courts, and seek to protect themselves behind the veil of the
Corporate Entity. The law is not toothless, but empowers the
Courts with authority to deal with such situations."
11. In view of the aforesaid mandate of law, this Court is of the
opinion that there is sufficient prima facie evidence provided in the
SFIO report to proceed under Section 542 of the Act for holding the
ex-Director, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and other persons named in the
SFIO report personally liable, without any limitation of liability for all
or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company.
Gurgaon Property
12. The SFIO in its report has stated that large tracts of land in
Gurgaon had been purchased from the funds of the JVG Finance
Limited, but in the name of other Group Companies of JVG which are
not in liquidation. The Company wise details of the land purchased is
as under:-
S. Name of Area of Land Value of Land Name of
No. Company Acre Kanal Marla (In Rs.) Villages of
Distt. Gurgaon
1. JVG Foods Ltd. 32 03 09 2,23,19,848 Rangala, Bohra
Kuhurd,
Sidhrawali
Hiramathla,
Rathiwas
Utone, Persoli
2. JVG Housing 27 01 12 1,90,44,730 -do-
Finance Ltd.
3. JVG Farm Fresh 18 05 10 1,42,26,010 -do-
Ltd.
4. JVG Hotels Ltd. 14 02 00 1,41,09,867 -do-
5. JVG Steels Ltd. 16 03 15 2,09,99,790 -do-
6. JVG 17 07 11 2,29,05,740 -do-
Petrochemicals
Ltd.
7. JVG Overseas 26 02 10 2,82,44,937 -do-
Ltd.
8. JVG Financing 06 13 46,64,790 -do-
Services Ltd.
9. JVG Publications 00 03 14 19,42,500 -do-
Ltd.
10. JVG Industries 00 03 14 19,42,500 -do-
Ltd.
11. Goga Foods Ltd. 06 02 08 72,45,239
12. India Ceroils 01 00 19 26,63,402 -do-
Ltd.
13. Santosha Resorts 01 00 19 26,63,402 -do-
Pvt. Ltd.
Total:- 162972755
13. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma, ex-Director, admits the factum of purchase of the aforesaid
lands in the name of other companies through the funds of M/s. JVG
Finance Limited. He, however, states that the said lands had been
purchased in the name of other JVG Group of Companies due to the
land ceiling Laws.
14. In view of the aforesaid admission, this Court directs the
attachment of the land mentioned in the aforesaid chart. The Official
Liquidator is also directed to forthwith take possession of the said
lands. For this purpose, the local police is directed to render all
assistance to the Official Liquidator. To secure possession, the
Official Liquidator would also be entitled to appoint Security Guards.
However, it is clarified that for the time being land in possession of
M/s. Tirupati Cylinders shall neither be taken over nor attached as
SFIO has stated in its report that its promoter Mr. Dinesh Goyal had
paid consideration to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, ex-Director of JVG
Finance Limited.
15. Moreover, in view of the admission made by Mr. Shailendra
Singh, learned counsel for Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, ex-Director, this
Court further directs that the entire cluster of the JVG Group of
Companies be brought into the fold of liquidation. Consequently, the
Official Liquidator is directed to forthwith file winding up petitions
against the cluster of JVG Companies mentioned in the aforesaid chart
on behalf of the JVG Finance Limited in its capacity as a creditor.
Loans and Advances of Rs. 9.73 crores
16. SFIO in its report has also concluded that as on 31st March,
1997, loans and advances of Rs. 9.73 crores (approx.) of JVG Finance
Limited were outstanding against Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his
family members and relatives. The details of loans and advances
given by JVG Finance Limited to Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his
family members are as under:-
Mr. Deepak Sharma 4,10,205.00
Mr. Divesh 34,756.64
Ms. Divya Sharma 3,90,195.00
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma 1,32,42,600.00
Mr. Prem Prakash Basudava 19,75,000.00
Mr. Rajesh Sharma 32,62,064.00
Ms. Ritu Sharma 45,65,957.00
Mr. S.P. Sharma 53,50,421.64
Ms. Seema Rani 55,55,035.00
Ms. Sushila Sharma 53,30,476.64
Ms. Urmila Sharma 48,03,575.00
Mr. V.K. Sharma 37,33,070.92
Mr. V.K. Sharma (HUF) 14,44,000.00
Ms. Veena Sharma 3,20,52,430.64
Ms. Veena Sharma & Others 15,80,884.00
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma 49,63,100.44
Mr. Vinay Sharma 43,78,245.00
Mr. Vishal Sharma 42,13,723.00
9,72,85,739.92
17. The SFIO has further found that the aforesaid loans and
advances were fraudulently squared off through Agreement to Sell
dated 08th January, 1997 by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family
members by transferring immovable properties namely, Plots No. 1, 2
and 3, Ashoka Park, New Delhi to JVG Finance Limited in the year
1996-1997 for a sum of Rs.10 crores.
18. It is pertinent to mention that SFIO in its report has stated that
the said properties had been initially purchased entirely from the funds
of the JVG Group Companies namely, JVG Leasing and JVG
Departmental Stores. SFIO has also found that Plots No. 1, 2 and 3,
Ashoka Park, New Delhi, had been purchased in the year 1994-1995
at a total costs of Rs.35.10 lakhs in the name of Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma and his family members and in the very next year i.e. on 26 th
November, 1996, the property was transferred to the JVG Finance
Limited for a consideration of Rs.10 crores to square off the loans.
The consideration shown in this dubious transaction was evidently
inflated.
19. Consequently, this Court is prima facie of the view that Plots
No.1, 2 and 3, Ashoka Park, New Delhi were right from the beginning
the property of the company in liquidation and that the transfer of said
plots by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members was a
sham and a fraudulent transaction. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that loans and advances of Rs. 9.73 crores is still due and
payable by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members to JVG
Finance Limited.
20. Consequently, all the bank accounts and personal assets of the
individuals mentioned at Annexure-62 of the report namely, Mr.
Deepak Sharma, Mr. Divesh, Ms. Divya Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi
Sharma, Mr. Prem Prakash Basudava, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Ritu
Sharma, Mr. S.P. Sharma, Ms. Seema Rani, Ms. Sushila Sharma, Ms.
Urmila Sharma, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Mr. VK. Sharma (HUF),
Ms. Veena Sharma, Ms.Veena Sharma & Others, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Vinay Sharma and Mr. Vishal Sharma are attached to the
extent of loans and advances mentioned against their names in the
aforesaid chart.
21. The said individuals are also directed to file affidavits
disclosing details of their bank accounts held either singly or jointly as
well as a list of all of their personal assets.
Property Bearing No. A-24, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New
Delhi.
22. Further, the SFIO in its report has found that M/s. Yusuf
Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. owning property bearing No. A-24,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, had been purchased from
the funds of JVG Finance Limited. The amount of money transferred
by JVG Finance Limited to Yusuf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as well as to
its ex-Directors is reproduced hereinbelow:-
S. No. Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.) In Favor Of
1. 254321 27/12/95 3,00,000 Yusuf Engg. Pvt.
Ltd.
2. 254381 5/1/96 10,00,000 Shri Yusuf
Hafeez
3. 260643 8/2/96 10,00,000 Yusuf Engg. Pvt.
Ltd.
4. 260744 19/2/96 2,50,000 -do-
5. 114501 13/11/96 6,18,590 Shri Abdul
Hafeez
6. 114504 13/11/96 1,11,350 Mrs. Noorsabha
23. It is also stated in the report that initially the shares were
transferred in favour of relatives of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and later
on in the year 2004, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his second wife
namely, Mrs. Anita Jain @ Anita Sharma became
shareholders/absolute owners of Yusuf Engineering Company Pvt.
Ltd.
24. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma, ex-Director, states that the aforesaid funds had been paid by
JVG Finance Limited in lieu of the excess payment made by Mr.
Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members to the company in
liquidation against transfer of Plots No. 1, 2 and 3, Ashoka Park, New
Delhi. Therefore, according to him, property bearing No. A-24,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, exclusively belongs to Mr.
Vijay Kumar Sharma and Yusuf Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.
25. However, Mr. N.K. Bhola, Additional Director of SFIO
reiterates that the alleged loan transaction of Rs. 9.73 crores is
fraudulent and that in any event it is separate and distinct from the
monies advanced to Yusuf Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.
26. Since this Court has already prima facie held that transfer of
Plots No. 1, 2 and 3, Ashoka Park, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs.10
crores by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members is a sham
and fraudulent transaction, this Court was inclined to direct
attachment of the property bearing No.A-24, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi. However, this Court has been shown a copy of
judgment dated 02nd March, 2012 passed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in E.A. No. 668-669/2011 and E.A. No. 5/2012 wherein the
sale of this property has been confirmed in favour of the auction
purchaser namely, Mr. Manish Katyal. In the judgment dated 02nd
March, 2012, this Court has taken note of the SFIO report and its
finding wherein it has been brought out that the said property was
purchased from the funds of JVG Finance Limited. However, the
judgment nowhere discloses that the attention of the said Court was
invited towards Section 446 and other provisions of the Act which
provide that the assets of the company in liquidation cannot be sold or
disposed of without prior sanction of this Court. It also appears that
no notice was issued to the Official Liquidator in those proceedings.
Accordingly, Official Liquidator is directed to take immediate steps in
accordance with law to protect the interest of the company in
liquidation qua the said property.
Property at Meera Bagh, New Delhi.
27. The SFIO in its report has also stated that property bearing No.
A-302, Block-1 (area measuring 397.40 sq. yards) situated at Meera
Bagh, New Delhi-110041 had been purchased from the funds of JVG
Finance Limited in the year, 1996-1997.
28. Though the aforesaid property had been purchased in the name
of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his relatives, but according to the
SFIO report, the entire sale consideration of Rs. 22 lakhs for the
aforesaid property had been paid from the bank accounts of JVG
Finance Limited.
29. The SFIO‟s investigation has revealed that the said property has
already been sold by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his wife as well as
his parents to third parties after JVG Finance Limited was put under
liquidation.
30. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, states that the aforesaid funds had been
paid by JVG Finance Limited in lieu of the excess payment made by
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members to the company in
liquidation against transfer of Plots No. 1, 2 and 3, Ashoka Park, New
Delhi. He further states that the finding of the SFIO is based on the
balance sheet of the company i.e. 31st March, 1997 and does not take
into account the transactions executed by the company till the date of
winding up i.e. 05th June, 1998. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel
emphasizes that between the years 1998 to 2005, Mr. Vijay Kumar
Sharma had repaid creditors of the JVG Finance Limited to the extent
of Rs. 12 crores.
31. Mr. N.K. Bhola, Additional Director, appearing for SFIO states
that during investigation despite repeatedly being asked, Mr. Vijay
Kumar Sharma did not furnish any proof of any payment to any
creditor between the years 1998 to 2005.
32. Even today despite opportunity, no document has been placed
on record by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma to show payment of any
money to any creditor leave alone the payment of Rs. 12 crores.
33. Since the said property has already been sold to third parties,
this Court, in the interim, directs attachment of the bank accounts and
personal assets of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his family members
namely, Mrs. Veena Sharma and Mrs. Anita Sharma. Mr. Vijay
Kumar Sharma as well as his wives namely, Mrs. Anita Sharma and
Mrs. Veena Sharma are directed to file affidavits disclosing details of
their bank accounts either singly or jointly as well as list of all their
personal assets of movable and immovable nature.
Jewellery and Silver Articles
34. The SFIO in its report has also stated that out of siphoned off
funds of JVG Finance Limited, a large quantity of jewellery and silver
articles had been purchased by Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his wife
Mrs.Veena Sharma.
35. For instance, one of the jewellers, M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji
Zaveri, has vide its letter dated 26th May, 2008 informed the SFIO as
under:-
"Kind Attention: Mr. N.K. Bhola--Additional Director &
Inspector
Dear Sirs,
We refer to your above summons dated 13th May, 2008. In
this regard, we have to state as under:
We have had business dealing with M/s. JVG Finance Ltd.
We have sold silver articles to them. The details of sales &
payments received are as under:-
SALES
Bill No. Bill Date Quantity In Amount
grams
571 08/11/1996 690.000 6,645.00
684 12/11/1996 13855.000 1,26,012.00
800 05/12/1996 396763.000 35,45,925.00
833 18/12/1996 98385.000 8,63,231.00
Total Sales 45,41,813.00
PAYMENTS
Date of Amount Received Payment Details
Payment
08/11/1996 6,645.00 Cash Received
26/10/1996 10,00,000.00 Cq.114303 of
Corporation Bank
29/10/1996 10,00,000.00 Cq.114304 of
Corporation Bank
04/11/1996 5,00,000.00 Cq:114781 of
Corporation Bank
07/11/1996 5,00,000.00 Cq:114809 of
Corporation Bank
09/12/1996 10,00,000.00 Cq:129120 of
Corporation Bank
11/04/1997 5,00,000.00 Cq: 129863 of
Corporation Bank
16/06/1997 35,000.00 Cq:117248 of Vijaya
Bank
31/03/1998 168.00 Written off as
Irrecoverable claims
Total 45,41,813.00
Apart from the above business transactions, we have had
no other dealing with M/s. JVG Finance Ltd.
We hope that the above is in order:
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
For Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Private Limited."
36. Invoices of M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers have also been annexed
by the SFIO in its report. One such annexure is found at Annexure-
137 of the report.
37. Consequently, the jewellery and other items mentioned in
Annexures- 136, 137, 138 and 139 of the report are directed to be
attached.
38. The Official Liquidator is directed to forthwith take possession
of the aforesaid jewellery and other articles with the help of police
aid, if necessary. The Official Liquidator will be entitled to take
assistance of an approved jeweller/valuer from the Income Tax
Department.
Property bearing No.Flat No. 38, Second Floor, Jevan Anand
Cooperative Group Housing Society, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.
39. Since the SFIO in its report has stated that Flat No.38, second
floor, Jeevan Anand Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Pitam
Pura, New Delhi was purchased out of the funds of JVG Finance
Limited and the said property had been fraudulently sold by Mr.
Satinder Dutta, brother-in-law of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and the
sale proceeds had not been deposited with the JVG Finance Limited,
the personal bank account of Mr. Satinder Dutta is attached to the
extent of Rs. 3.40 lakhs with compound interest @ 12% per annum.
40. Mr. Satinder Dutta is directed to file an affidavit disclosing his
bank accounts as well as all other assets owned by him. He is also
directed to furnish his income tax returns for the last seven years
within a period of four weeks.
Sainik Farm Property
41. The SFIO has also stated in its report that the entire purchase
consideration of Rs. 72 lakhs for properties bearing Khasra Nos. 13/5,
13/6, Village Devli, Mahrouli, Delhi, presently known as 130A,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi, has been paid from the bank account of
JVG Finance Limited.
42. Since out of the 6000 sq.yds., 3000 sq. yds. is still in the
possession of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and his wife Mrs. Veena
Sharma, the Official Liquidator is directed to attach the aforesaid
property and immediately take possession of the same.
43. The Official Liquidator shall be entitled to obtain police aid for
the same, if necessary.
44. To facilitate the implementation and execution of this order, the
Official Liquidator shall be entitled to take assistance of the SFIO
officers who had conducted the investigation in the present case.
Moreover, as implementation and execution of this order will take
some time, all the parties against whom interim order has been passed
today, are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the assets and
accounts attached. Needless to say, this order is without prejudice to
the rights and contentions of the parties that may be urged at the time
of final hearing of the application.
45. List the matters on 18th May, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. for further
hearing of the SFIO report with regard to immovable properties
situated outside the National Capital Region of Delhi as well as other
assets of company in liquidation and for consideration of interim
orders against other officers of JVG Group of Companies.
Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J
APRIL 30, 2012
js
