R VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. ANUBHAV PLANTATIONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Judge dated 4.12.2001 in the memo dated 16.8.2000 filed by the Administrator in Company Petition No.130 of 1999.

(2.) THE matter relates to the Anubhav Plantations Ltd. This court in the said company petition appointed the Administrator to take over the assets of the company and to sell the same in order to make payment to the depositors. The Administrator Mr.M. Ravindran, senior counsel of the Madras Bar filed a memo on 16.8.2000 wherein he has stated that one Mr.Vijayakumar, the Managing Director of M/s. Goodluck Inn (P) Ltd. entered into an agreement with Mr.C. Natesan of Anubhav Plantations to sell certain lands of an extent of 5.28 Acres in Kazhipattur Village for a total consideration of Rs.26,40,000/ -. The said Mr.Vijayakumar also entered into an another agreement with the said Mr. Natesan to sell another land of an extent of 5.42 Acres of the same village for a consideration of Rs.27.10 lakhs. Yet another agreement was also entered between them in respect of 2.04 acres. In three agreements of sale dated 24.1.1994 and another agreement of sale dated 9.5.96 merely survey number 20 is mentioned without any sub -division. The said Vijayakumar produced parent document only in respect of an extent of 9.05 -1/2 Acres. In respect of the other remaining lands, there was no parent document. He also executed 25 sale deeds in favour of the said Natesan of Anubhav Plantations of which 14 are unregistered and in the description of property it is shown as if Survey No.20 was sub -divided and sub -division numbers have been given. Since suspicion arose with regard to the bona fide of the transaction, the learned Judge directed the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.B.,C.I.D., to investigate and file a Report.

(3.) ON 4.12.2001 the learned Judge passed the following order: As seen from the report, the investigation by the police disclose that the persons named therein have committed offence punishable under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C etc., Since the police have investigated the crime as per the orders of this court, this court directs the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch -II, C.B.,C.I.D.,Chennai -2 to proceed further to prosecute the accused persons, named in the report, file a charge sheet, substantiate the charges and proceed further according to law. The Police may file a report once in six months setting out the progress of the criminal prosecution. If the police require any further direction, it is open to them to move this court. The concerned Magistrate Court where the charge sheet is filed is directed to take up this case out of turn, try and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The prosecution shall file a memo before the concerned criminal court and bring this direction to the attention of the said court. The Registry is directed to issue a copy of the proceedings to the said Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch -II, C.B.,C.I.D, Chennai -2 and also a copy to the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, within two days from today (i.e.) 6.12.2001. The Registry is directed to keep the report in a sealed cover in the custody of Registrar (OS) for future reference.'