LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-254

DINESH NANJI SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On November 04, 2020
Dinesh Nanji Shah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant is arraigned as accused in C.R. No.220 of 2019 registered with Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai on 03/08/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the IPC. The complaint came to be subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police.

(2.) The Applicant before the Court is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is embroiled in a skirmish between the two Directors of the Company. The Complainant, who alleges that he was allotted less shares while increasing the share capital of the Company and is aggrieved by the loss in his shareholding, blames the other Director. This, in nutshell, is the case of the Applicant, who is represented by Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel. His submission is that the Applicant, who is a Chartered Accountant, on account of the conflict between the Directors has resigned on 20/11/2018 and, after that, he has no connection with the tug of war involving the two Directors of the private company.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Pendse, learned counsel for the Intervenor has urged that the Complainant is the Director of the Company S.B. Abodes Private Limited of which Mansukhlal Gala (Accused No.1) is another Director. He alleges that the Applicant who is a Chartered Accountant, along with Accused No.1 - Gala entered into a conspiracy in order to cause a wrongful gain to himself and for giving effect to the said conspiracy, he has prepared forged and fabricated documents favouring another Director, which included the Board Resolutions of the Company, Minutes of the Meetings, etc. where his signatures have been forged. The allegation is that these fabricated documents were presented as genuine before the Registrar of Companies knowing that they are not so. The loss caused to the Complainant and his family members is estimated to be Rs.113.25 crores and, therefore, Mr. Pendse has strongly opposed the relief sought by the Applicant.