LexARVIND MOHAN JOHARI AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ARVIND MOHAN JOHAR! AND ANR.
-..,,.
v.
~
Sl:ATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
MAY 4, 2005
B
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND
S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
-
Bail-Cancellation of-FIR against accused in respect of transactions
c with other companies-Bail granted by Supreme Court on representation made
by the accused that amount lying to their credit in National Stock Exchange
and Bombay Stock Exchange be appropriated in disbursing payments to
c/aimants-N.S.E. and B.S.E. directed to deposit the amount lying to the credit
,..-
of the accused-The two Stock Exchanges filing application for recalling the
order stating that no amount was payable by them to the accused-Held, the
D accused misled the Court in passing the order-Order granting bail and
directing the two Stock Exchanges to deposit the money recalled
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Misc. Petition
Nos. 47-48 of 2005.
E
IN
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1265-66 of 2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.2004 of the Allahabad High
Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1889 (B) of 2003 & Crl. Misc.Case No. 1891
F (B) of 2003.
,,..,,
WITH
Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 53-54 of 2005 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 1265-
1266 of 2004.
G
R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Swaraj Kaushal, Dushyant A.
Dave, Rakesh Dwivedi, Jayant Bhushan and J.L. Gupta, Dinesh Kumar Garg,
B.S. Billowria, D.K. Gupta, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, Manish Singhvi, Sheetal
Prasad Juneja, Pratap Venuopal, P.S. Sudheer, Vivek Raj Singh, Ms.
Meenakshi Arora, Rohima Nath, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Amit Kumar, Sanjay
~-· '{
H
1204
AR VIND MOHAN JOHAR! v. STA TE OF U.P.
1205
Bhatt, Anurag Sharma, Vishnu Sharma and P. Parmeswaran with them for A
•
the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
These applications have been filed for clarification and/or recalling an
order dated 3.11.2004 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1265-66 B
of 2004 whereby and whereunder the respective applicants were directed to
deposit the money lying in the credit of the Appellants herein.
The said applications have been filed in the following circumstances.
The Appellants floated various groups of companies including one known as c
'Mis Century Consultants Ltd.' Two criminal cases were initiated against
them arising out FIR No. R.C. No. 8(S)/200l to R.C. No. 12(S) of2001/CBI,
...,
Lucknow dated 6.7.2001 and R.C. No. 15(S)/2001 to R.C. No. 18(S)/2001/
CBI, Lucknow dated 6. 7.200 I; one relating to transactions in respect of M/
s Country Inform Tech Pvt. Ltd. and another in relation to Mis Century
Consultants Ltd .. Mis Century Consultants Ltd. has since been directed to be D
wound up in a winding up proceeding by the learned Company Judge.
In the aforementioned criminal proceedings, the Appellants prayed for
grant of bail which was rejected whereagainst these appeals were preferred.
The Appellants before us had contended that they would have no. objection
ifthe assets held and possessed by them are sold for payment to the depositors E
of Mis Century Consultants and Mis City Cooperative Bank Ltd. It was
contended that the amounts of Rs. 17 Crores and Rs. 13 Crores were lying
with the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange respectively.
It was further urged that the amounts lying with the Stock Exchanges stand
admitted in their written statements filed in Civil Suit No. 312 of 2002.
"
F
The Bombay Stock Exchange now contends that the aforementioned
two contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants herein were not correct.
In this behalf, our attention has been drawn by Mr. Dushyant A. Dave,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Bombay Stock Exchange, to
the following statements: :
G
"(ii) That in the instant case, the Century Consultant Ltd., during the
period from 15th March 200 I to 23rd March 200 I had failed to make
•
payments to the Exchange towards their settlement obligations in
respect of the Rolling as well as Weekly settlement on the respective
pay-in dates. The said member initially failed to pay its pay-in H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] 3 S.C.R.
obligation pertaining to the Rolling Settlement No. 241/00-01 (Pay-
in date was 16th March 2001) and thereafter had committed defaults
in paying its obligations in subsequent Rolling Settlements as well as
Weekly Settlements on the respective Pay-in dates as under :
Settlement
Trading
Pay-in
Amount (Rs. )
No.
date
dates
DR-241/00-0 l
09.0Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.