Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1087 of 2003
SUCCY BOBBY VARGHESE & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR .... RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1086 OF 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1163 OF 2003
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1088 OF 2003
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2003
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Although special leave had been granted way back
in 2003, subsequent to the grant of leave certain
developments have taken place which require that the
matter should be reconsidered by the High Court.
Pursuant to the orders of the High Court made in
Criminal Complaint No. 5 of 2003 in C.P No. 18 of 1999
a Special Officer had been appointed to suggest
2
measures and ways for the revival of the Company and to
ensure that the dues of the Company were duly settled.
rd
This report dated 23 December, 2009 is on file. It
has come on page 71 of the additional documents filed
by the appellants that the creditors/claimants seeking
payment from the appellant-Company have been
substantially settled though some disputes still remain
for which some amounts have been kept aside. In para
11 of the Report afore-referred, the Special Officer
has suggested as under:
“Regarding misfeasance applications,
criminal complaints and debts claims
pending before this Hon'ble Court. As
mentioned in para 210 to 220 (page No. 95
to 99) of report No. 7, the decision of the
Committee be approved, misfeasance
application may be dismissed, criminal
complaints pending before this Hon'ble
Court may be closed as settled while
criminal cases pending against the former
Directors before the lower court (which is
mentioned at para 221 and 222 page No. 99
and 100 of report No. 7) may be quashed by
the Hon'ble High Court invoking in powers
under 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, in
the interest of promoting the ends of
justice, preventing the abuse of process
and facilitating the revival of the
company.”
3. In the light of the aforesaid suggestions and
3
keeping in view of the above facts, it is appropriate
that the matter should be remitted to the High Court
for reconsideration as the matter for revival of
company is pending before the High Court. We,
accordingly, quash the orders of both the Company Judge
th
dated 26 November, 2002 and that of the Division
rd
Bench dated 23 May, 2003 and remit the case to the
High Court for decision afresh and to make an order in
the backdrop of the report of the Special Officer.
4. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
5. In the light of the above order, all other
pending applications are disposed of.
......................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
......................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 20, 2010.