Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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