BOTTA RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that, he is the director of M/s VR Chits and Investments Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. The said company was established for doing business in chits and investments and also running the educational institutions. In order to develop the business and for running educational institutions, the company has borrowed Rs.1,80,000.00 (in total) from respondent nos.3 & 4 on 15/4/2003 and Rs.80,000.00 from respondent nos.5 & 6 on 21/3/2003 under promissory notes of even dates in their favour agreeing to repay the amounts with interest @ 24% to respondent nos.3 & 4 and 14% to respondent nos.5 & 6. Likewise, the company has borrowed various amounts from 1946 persons including the unofficial respondents herein.

(2.) It is the further case that, since the company could not pay back the amounts borrowed by it to the creditors/lenders due to financial loss in the companys business, the respondent nos.3 & 4 and respondent nos.5 & 6 filed Consumer case Nos.272 & 274 of 2009 respectively before the 2nd respondent, for recovery of amount due to them with an allegation of deficiency of service, which were allowed on 10/12/2009. Thereafter, the respondent nos.3 & 4 filed E.A.No.4 of 2010 and respondent nos.5 & 6 filed E.A.No.5 of 2010 against the petitioner and one Sri V.Madhusudhan Rao, who is the Managing Director of the Company. Pending consideration of the EA proceedings, V.Madhusudhan Rao died on 5/3/2010, as such, the case against him was dismissed as abated. Now, the EAs are pending against the petitioner only, under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, with a prayer to issue arrest warrant against the petitioner and to punish him and recover the awarded amounts from him.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID) representing the state, had also filed a criminal case in C.C.Nos.1 & 2 of 2007 under AP Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short, ,,Act, 1999) before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- special judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused no.5 along with late V.Madhusudhan Rao and the unofficial respondents (3 & 5) were arrayed in the list of creditors and hence, all the properties of the company and the petitioner are under attachment under the Act, 1999. Under the scheme of the said Act, after sale of attached properties of the company by way of public auction, the amounts due to each creditors, will be paid by the competent authorities, appointed by the government. In the present case, Additional Deputy Director General of Police (CID) is the competent authority.