Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Alleging Fraud in Sale of Shares, Citing Abuse of Process and Delay

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, has quashed a complaint alleging fraud in the sale of shares. The court held that the complaint was an abuse of process and that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

The case, titled Prakash Aggarwal v. Ganesh Benzoplast Limited and Another, arose from a dispute over an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) agreement. The complainant, Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., had availed two ICD facilities from Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd., with shares pledged as security. The accused, who were directors of Morgan Securities and Credits, were responsible for managing the company's affairs.

The complainant alleged that the accused had sold the pledged shares to themselves at a lower price, constituting fraud and breach of trust. However, the Supreme Court carefully examined the Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement (ICDA) and the Letter of Pledge (LoP) executed between the parties. It found that the accused had the authority to invoke the pledge and sell the shares as per the agreed terms.

Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant was aware of the sale of shares as early as 2001, during the arbitration proceedings initiated at that time. However, the complainant failed to take any action until much later, when it filed an application before the arbitrator in 2006 seeking details of the sale. The court deemed the subsequent filing of the complaint in 2011 as an inordinate delay.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court held that the complaint was an abuse of process of law. It emphasized that the allegations made by the complainant were contrary to the terms agreed upon in the ICDA and the LoP. The court concluded that the complainant's attempt to convert a contractual dispute into a criminal case was unwarranted.

Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and dismissed the complaint. The court also clarified that its observations and the dismissal of the complaint should not affect any proceedings regarding the arbitral award or any other legal actions pursued by the appellants.

PRAKASH AGGARWAL vs GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED

Latest Legal News