Full Order Text
Order 4 · 21 Feb 2024 · CNR MHMM180082162022
Order Details: Order Below EX 1 Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1672 PW 2022 State Vs Basav B. Paul CNR No.MHMM18-008216-2022 ORDER BELOW EXH.12 1. Perused record. This is an application under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. 2. Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused. Heard Ld. A.P.P. 3. The summary of the allegations transpired from this charge sheet can be summarized as follows - The company named as Shaila Clubs and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred as Shaila Clubs, on 02.05.2005, was formed by Mr. Rajiv Kore (now deceased) and Mr. Sanjay Mahadev Pratap. Its main business activity was running clubs and restaurants at Mumbai and Sangli. In the year 2007, the father of first informant deceased Vilasrao Patil, became its Director as some shares were held by him. The informant came to know about its various business activities from his father and deceased Rajiv Kore. In the year 2007, Conducting Agreement was executed between Shaila Clubs and Savannah Lifestyle, a company owned by accused/present applicant. In consideration of this Conducting Agreement accused through his company Savannah Lifestyle, paid about Rs.15 cores, from 18.05.2008 till 2011. He had received a substantial stake in the profit earned by Shaila Clubs. For acknowledging the amount paid by accused share certificates were issued by Shaila Clubs, to the accused on 31.03.2007. Later on, 10.01.2008 Chartered Accountant of the Shaila Clubs also issued certificates acknowledging valuation of those shares along with interest calculation sheet in the name of Savannah Lifestyle i.e. a company owned by accused. The value of each share was fixed at Rs.1,31,000/-. Later on, a disputed document dated 28.01.2009, a Borrowing Agreement was executed between Shaila Clubs and Savannah Lifestyle, 1/5 -- 1 of 5 -- C. C. No. 1672 PW 2022 State Vs Basav B. Paul CNR No.MHMM18-008216-2022 through one of the director of Shaila Clubs Mr. Rajiv Kore and applicant/accused for Savannah Lifestyle. By way of this agreement accused contended that he paid additional Rs.5 Cores to his company to Shaila Clubs on 11.01.2008, in the form of Hundi, i.e. by way of cash transaction with a condition to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month payable monthly and principal to be repaid at the end of the year of that day. During subsistence of these transactions on 07.07.2013, one of the Director of Shaila Clubs Mr. Rajiv Kore died. During this period the informant is substituted as Director in place of his father Mr. Vilasrao Patil. Later on, in the same year 2013, dispute occurred between Shaila Clubs and Savannah Lifestyle and they cancelled the Conducting Agreement, executed between both the companies. Shaila Clubs also approached Arbitrator and the proceedings continued upto the month of January, 2021. The Shaila Clubs approached High Court. It is contended that accused also approached Arbitrator. His contention was also rejected. But he has not challenged said order. Then in the year 2018, Mrs. Meghana Rajiv Kore, the wife of deceased Director Mr. Rajiv Kore, approached National Company Law Tribunal hereinafter referred as N.C.L.T., and prayed for certain reliefs under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The accused came to know about it and participated in the said proceedings before N.C.L.T. While making claims accused filed on record the disputed Borrowing Agreement dated 28.01.2009 and he claimed that Shaila Clubs obtained additional Rs.5 cores from him by way of Hundi. In these background facts and circumstances informant approached police and lodged report alleging that no such document i.e. Borrowing Agreement, dated 28.01.2009 executed by deceased Director Mr. Rajiv Kore. Accused with 2/5 -- 2 of 5 -- C. C. No. 1672 PW 2022 State Vs Basav B. Paul CNR No.MHMM18-008216-2022 intention to cheat informant and his company Shaila Clubs forged and produced this document before N.C.L.T. on 15.11.2021. Then accused was arrested and after preliminary proceedings he was released on bail. Investigation was completed and present charge sheet is filed, in this court. 4. In this lengthy application, the applicant/accused claimed discharge on various grounds, which can be summarized in a way that he is innocent and falsely implicated. No offence as alleged made out. The dispute is purely of civil nature. He relied on judgments of Supreme Court and contended that no offence of cheating, forgery, etc. made out. The dispute is pending before N.C.L.T. and the F.I.R. was registered and the present final report is filed only with sole intention to pressurize the accused to settle the dispute going on between the parties. There is no evidence on record. Therefore, he shall be discharged. 5. The Ld. A.P.P. objected to it vide his reply, Exh.17, contending that there is enough material on record to draw the inference of cheating and other allegations against accused. The stake involved is high. The whole evidence can not be marshaled at this stage. The prima facie case made out. He also relied on certain citations and hence, prayed for rejection of the application. 6. The summary of both the parties are in tune with their respective contentions. 7. The allegations can be summarized in a way that the husband of informant owned company named as Shaila Club and Resort Pvt. Ltd. The accused owns a company named as Savannah Lifestyles. The company of the accused entered into transaction with Shaila Clubs and Resort, named as Conduction Agreement, for managing it’s club situated at Bandra, Mumbai. As per said agreement accused paid Rs.15,00,00,000/-. Then dispute occurred 3/5 -- 3 of 5 -- C. C. No. 1672 PW 2022 State Vs Basav B. Paul CNR No.MHMM18-008216-2022 and said agreement was canceled. The parties approached Arbitrator and High Court, as well. The informant approached N.C.L.T. for bankruptcy. In the said proceeding the accused participated and filed another document Hundi and claimed that he had paid additional amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- to Shaila Club. It is contended that said document is forged by him and his claim is false, made with intention to defraud the informant and other stakeholders. 8. Almost all the facts upto the claim made by accused before N.C.L.T. on the basis of Hundi, are not in dispute. The only disputed fact is whether the said document is genuine or not? The additional fact to be considered is whether dispute is purely of civil nature and constitutes no offence. 9. If we go through record, particularly contents of First Information Report and documents produced in support of it, it shows that the disputed document was executed on 28.01.2009. However, it was first brought in picture by accused on 15.11.2021, before Insolvency Resolution Professional (I.R.P.). During this long span of time of about 12 years several incidences and disputes occurred between the parties themselves and those dispute reached upto several forums. In none of those disputes or any such forums accused produced disputed document. 10. There is no explanation came on record from the side of accused about this long standing silence. The amount of the disputed document is high and claim made by accused on its basis is also very high. 11. These aspects of the matter and long standing silence on the part of the accused creates doubt about his intentions. This is not hollow doubt. There is enough material on record to draw the inference of prima facie case against accused. From the intervening facts and circumstances the intention to defraud can be attributed to the accused. His long standing silence about the 4/5 -- 4 of 5 -- C. C. No. 1672 PW 2022 State Vs Basav B. Paul CNR No.MHMM18-008216-2022 existence of disputed document creates doubt about his bonafides. Therefore, the dispute can not be said to be purely dispute of civil nature based on business transactions. The element of wrongful gain and wrongful loss with intention to defraud the informant and other stakeholders can be gathered from the material produced with charge sheet. 12. As such The grounds assigned are not available to accused. No case for discharge made out. Therefore, following order - ORDER Application is rejected. Sd/- MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT) DATE – 21.02.2024 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI 5/5 -- 5 of 5 --
