Delhi High Court
M/S Sheeba Wheels Private Ltd. vs Satvijay Investment & ... on 13 January, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7892/2014 and CM No.18495/2014 (stay)
M/S SHEEBA WHEELS PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate
versus
SATVIJAY INVESTMENT & CONSULTANCY
SERVICES (P) LTD. & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 13.01.2015
1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 23.09.2014 passed
by the Company Law Board (CLB). The said order came to be passed on an
application moved by the petitioner herein, whereby the petitioner sought
stay of proceedings, in Company Petition no.45/2003, on the ground that
criminal proceedings were pending against the respondents herein, in FIR
No.63(11)/2004, P.S. Laban, Shillong, under various sections of the IPC.
2. Briefly, it is the assertion of the petitioner that respondent nos.26 and
27 have by committing forgery transferred shares of companies, arrayed as
respondent nos.1 to 25, which, in turn, has become the basis of a petition
under Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 402 of the Companies Act,
1956 (in short the Act) being filed against it. It is also the assertion of the
petitioner that because of forgery committed by the respondents herein,
which includes, unauthorised use of signed cheques, letterheads and other
W.P.(C) 7892/2014 page 1 of 4
documents, it is facing criminal prosecution in several courts. The forged
documents, according to the petitioner, are subject matter of consideration
both before the trial court at Shillong as well as the CLB.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after broadly noting
the aforementioned assertion, the CLB instead of acceding to the petitioner's
request for grant of stay of the proceedings called upon its counsel to make
his submissions in the main petition filed on behalf of the respondents
herein.
3.1 The CLB, in the impugned order has also come to the conclusion that
stay of the CLB proceedings could not be granted on account of pendency of
criminal proceedings against respondent nos.1 to 27 herein. As a matter of
fact, the petitioner's application for stay has been dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/-.
3.2 I am informed that the matter is listed before the CLB on 16.01.2015.
4. Mr. Verma, who appears for the petitioner submitted initially that the
documents which are being considered by the trial court at Shillong are the
very documents, which the petitioner seeks to rely upon in its defence in the
petition filed by the respondents herein, under Sections 397 and 398 of the
Act. Based on this, Mr. Verma had sought to contend that the CLB was
obliged to stay the proceedings.
5. Having considered the matter, there was, in my view, no error in the
judgment of the CLB. In my opinion, the documents in respect of which the
petitioner alleges forgery can always be examined by the CLB. The scope
of proceedings before the CLB is to ascertain whether there is oppression
and mismanagement of the shareholders. Nothing is shown which would
W.P.(C) 7892/2014 page 2 of 4
demonstrate that the CLB proceedings and the criminal proceedings are
grounded on the same set of facts. As is well known, the standard of proof
in civil proceedings is much lower as compared to that in criminal
proceedings. In these facts, no stay can be granted qua the pending CLB
proceedings. [See Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and Ors.,
(2007) 10 SCC 385]
5.1 The CLB would, therefore, in my view, be entitled to examine the
documents if, they are filed, as contended and relied upon by the petitioner
in opposition to the petition filed by the respondents herein.
6. Upon the above being put to Mr.Verma, the learned counsel revisited
his submission and stated that his only apprehension, was that, the CLB may
not examine the documents in respect of which forgery is alleged.
7. I have no reason to come to this conclusion at this juncture. I am sure
if the documents in respect of which umbrage is taken by the petitioner, are
relied upon by the petitioner herein, the CLB will examine them in
accordance with law, after taking into account the submission, if any, the
petitioner may make in that behalf.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the cost
imposed is heavy and that the impugned order to that extent be set aside.
8.1 I am sure if, the petitioner, moves an appropriate application, the CLB
would consider its request on that score, as well. Mr. Saxena, the learned
counsel for the respondents says that in so far as the costs are concerned, he
will not oppose any submission made on behalf of the petitioner in that
respect; leaving it entirely to the discretion of the CLB.
W.P.(C) 7892/2014 page 3 of 4
9. With the aforesaid observations in place, the writ petition and the
pending application are disposed of.
10. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JANUARY 13, 2015
Yg
W.P.(C) 7892/2014 page 4 of 4
