Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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