Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 11, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1100658

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1100658
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Harish Tandon
Decided On: Dec 11, 2013
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....not be proceeded with. it appears that in cours.of the misfeasance proceedings, this court directed the serious fraud investigation office (sfio) to enquire into the matter and in cours.of the enquiry the applicant was called and was directed to hand over the specimen signature appearing in one of the bank accounts. although, the applicant says that the signature appearing in form no.29 is forged one but it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the official liquidator that the specimen signatures submitted by the applicant, in fact, tallies with the signature appearing in the said form. whether the accused no.2 has any connection and/or nexus with the company (in liquidation) or the signature appearing in the record of the company is the signature of the applicant is a matter to be decided on trial. this court, therefore, does not find any justification in deleting the name of the accused no.2, the applicant herein, as a party in the misfeasance proceedings. it is submitted at this stage that the statement of claims has not been served. although, mr.basu, leaned advocate, appearing for the official liquidator on instruction submits that the statement of claims has already been forwarded and served upon the said accused but in order to avoid any complication, agrees to hand over another copy of the statement of claims to the advocate-on-record of the said accused no.2. in view of the finding made hereinabove, the application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. the official liquidator is directed to serve the copy of the statement of claims upon the advocate-on-record of the accused no.2 in cours.of this week. (harish tandon, j.) akb/-

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE CA No.50 of 2013 WITH CP No.261 of 2002 JENSONS NICHOLSON FINANCE SERVICE LTD.(IN LIQN.) -ANDTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA Appearance : Mr.Rajeev Kr.

Jain, Adv., Mr.Rahul Ginodia, Adv.…for Item No.67 Mr.D.Basu, Advocate, Ms.Sunita Das, Advocate, …Official Liquidator in Item No.64 BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 11th December, 2013.

The Court: This is an application at the instance of accused No.2 for dropping and discharging from the misfeasance proceedings.

It is categorically averred in the affidavit filed in support of the Judge’s Summons that the applicant was never appointed as Director in the company (in liquidation) nor have any nexus and/or connection therewith.

It is further contended that the applicant never held any shares in the company (in liquidation) and the father name, age and the date of birth is wrongly recorded therein.

It is submitted on behalf of applicant that his name is wrongly recorded as Director and, therefore, this misfeasance proceeding should not be proceeded with.

It appears that in couRs.of the misfeasance proceedings, this Court directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to enquire into the matter and in couRs.of the enquiry the applicant was called and was directed to hand over the specimen signature appearing in one of the Bank Accounts.

Although, the applicant says that the signature appearing in Form No.29 is forged one but it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Official Liquidator that the specimen signatures submitted by the applicant, in fact, tallies with the signature appearing in the said Form.

Whether the accused No.2 has any connection and/or nexus with the company (in liquidation) or the signature appearing in the record of the company is the signature of the applicant is a matter to be decided on trial.

This Court, therefore, does not find any justification in deleting the name of the accused No.2, the applicant herein, as a party in the misfeasance proceedings.

It is submitted at this stage that the statement of claims has not been served.

Although, Mr.Basu, leaned advocate, appearing for the Official Liquidator on instruction submits that the statement of claims has already been forwarded and served upon the said accused but in order to avoid any complication, agrees to hand over another copy of the statement of claims to the advocate-on-record of the said accused No.2.

In view of the finding made hereinabove, the application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

The Official Liquidator is directed to serve the copy of the statement of claims upon the advocate-on-record of the accused No.2 in couRs.of this week.

(HARISH TANDON, J.) akb/-

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject FERA Same Judge Harish Tandon