MUKAND LTD , MUMBAI Vs. P P , HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, ten in number, are A1 to A10 in C.C.No.995 of 2014 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. In all there are 14 accused in the calendar case that was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is M/s Mukund Limited, Maharashtra represented by Niraj Bajaj, the 2nd petitioner as its Chairman and Managing Director and among the other accused, A3 to A.10 shows as Directors of A1 company. According to them, they are ceased to be Directors from 18.05.2010, 31.05.2010 and 30.09.2014 respectively as evidenced by Form 32 and subsequently in August, 2010 A.4 to A.7 and A.9 continuing as Directors of A1 entity not in dispute.

(3.) The complainant entity representd by Mr Y.Bixapathy as authorized representative with registered office at Tarnaka, Secunderabad maintained the private complaint on 17.09.2014 against the fourteen accused including petitioners 1 to 10 as A1 to A10 supra and others i.e. A11-M/s Kalyani Steels Limited, Pune, A12-B.N.Kalyani, its Chairman, Pune, A13-S.M.Kheny, its Director and A.14 - B.B.Hattarki, another Director, Pune.