RAMESHKUMAR BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the Criminal Complaint No. 267 of 1993 instituted by respondent No. 2; against the applicants pending on the file of learned J. M. G. C. , Nagpur. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. "

(2.) MR. Anjan De, learned Counsel for the applicants, contended that the applicants are the Directors of M/s. Sigma Search Lights Ltd. ', a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is engaged in manufacture of electrical equipments, i. e. search lights. Respondent No. 2 is a company situated at Nagpur. It is contended that respondent No* 2 approached the applicants for manufacture of 150 Nos. of 450 mm. searchlights with 400 watts, tubelights or lamps and its control gear as it had received an order for the same. It was orally agreed between these two companies that the applicants-company would act as an agent for respondent No. 2 and would deliver the goods directly to the Inspector General of Prisons, Government of U. P. , lucknow. It was also agreed that the applicants would be authorised to sign the bills and challans and payment would be made simultaneously with the payments made by the Inspector General of Prisons and that respondent No. 2 would be entitled to discount of 5% on the price, and that the applicants would be fully responsible to execute the order. It is contended that the applicants supplied the entire quantity of goods as per the specification and the Indenting Officer duly acknowledged the same on the bills and accepted the bills and one copy of the bill was delivered by Sigma search Lights to respondent No. 2. 2-A. Mr. De further contended that the applicants were entitled to receive rs. 13,91,112. 00 as the costs of the goods after deducting 5% discount which was to be paid to the respondent No. 2 on account of his commission. It is contended that on 31-3-1993 a Demand Draft for Rs',12,87,607. 67 was received by the applicants from the Inspector General of Prisons in the name of respondent No. 2 for the goods supplied on behalf corespondent No. 2 which was handed over to the applicants. The respondent No. 2 refused to pay the amounts of goods supplied to the Inspector General of Prisons, Lucknow. Therefore, the applicants had instituted Civil Suit No240 of 1993 in the High court at Calcutta wherein relief was sought that, the Demand Draft for Rs. 12,87,607. 67 be encashed.

(3.) MR. De, learned Counsel, further con tended,. that the High Court of Calcutta appointed Smt. Seema Sengupta, Advocates a Receiver on hearing the parties. The respondent No. 2 had appeared in, that civil suit and prayed for vacation of the order of appointing the Receiver and for dismissal of the suit. On 24-9-1993 the Calcutta High Court modified the order, discharged Smt. Seema Sengupta Advocate and appointed joint Receiver who encashed the draft and kept the said amount in a Fixed Deposit with ABN Amro Bank for 92 days. Mr. De further contended that the respondent No. 2 thereafter moved an application under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act on 19-9-1997 before the calcutta High Court which came to be dismissed on 22-12-1997.