Comments
I heard that Mumbai office is open from 25/11/2009. I am not sure whether it is true. Can some tell me whether this is true or not?. If we get the principal amount, that's more than sufficient at this time. Make sure our principal is going to come back.
Reply
I got some info from the mumbai office staff of city realcom ltd that they will be in operation from 1st dec 09. I dont know how far this is true, as ealier they had declared dates on many occasions but failed to do so. Hope for the best,
D'man
D'man
Dear All,
I can understand now that they want to recover the lost money in DUBAI CASE of RS.350 Crores from you all.So if you all had partied good with their hefty interest payments, so now share the troubles also like a good friend.You all have to fore-go your 03-4 months returns and agree to get the return amount reduced to[protected]. NAHI TO GUMTEE RAH JAO GE.Don't be impulsive but think as a wise proposition that a amicable solution is arrived.
I can understand now that they want to recover the lost money in DUBAI CASE of RS.350 Crores from you all.So if you all had partied good with their hefty interest payments, so now share the troubles also like a good friend.You all have to fore-go your 03-4 months returns and agree to get the return amount reduced to[protected]. NAHI TO GUMTEE RAH JAO GE.Don't be impulsive but think as a wise proposition that a amicable solution is arrived.
ITEM NO.1Q COURT NO.3 SECTION IIA
SUPR EME COUR T OF I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1416 OF 2009 ARISING OUT OF
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3176/2008
STATE OF MAHARSHTRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date: 04/08/2009 This Petition was called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Niraj Gupta, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv
______
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak
Verma.
Leave granted.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly in view of the materials which have surfaced during
investigation, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set
aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with the directions recorded
in the signed reportable judgment.
(KALYANI GUPTA) (PUSHAP LATA
SR. P.A. BHARDWAJ)
COURT MASTER
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _________OF 2009
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3176 of 2008]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
APPELLANT
Versus
SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Maharashtra is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2008 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 2333 of 2007 quashing a First Information Report ("FIR") lodged by the
respondent No.2 herein at the Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai.
4
3. The first respondent is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s
City Limouzines (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred for the sake of
brevity as, "the said Company"). He established the said Company. A
scheme known as "Go/Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at
home" was floated. In terms of the said Scheme, assurances were given to
the people for earning money in easy way. A public advertisement was also
issued in a newspaper. They also issued pamphlets and thereby attracted
huge investments. In terms of the said Scheme, Rs.97, 907/- was to be
invested in `rent a car' scheme wherein agreement was executed inter alia
providing that the car would be purchased in the name of investor but would
be used by the Company on rent to others wherefor the investor would
receive a sum of Rs.4, 000/- per month for a period of five years. After 60
months, i.e., at the end of the agreement, the investor may take back his car
in proper working condition. It was equally provided that an investor was
entitled to inspect the vehicle given on lease/rent once in three months upon
giving 15 days prior notice.
4. Clauses 4, 8, 10 and 15 of the said agreement read as under:
"4. Inspection: The Lessor is entitled to
inspect the Vehicle given on Lease/rent once in 3
months by giving 15 days prior notice to the above
stated address and inspect the vehicle at any of the
offices of the Lessee in India.
xxx xxx
xxx
8. Buy Back: The Lessee will have the
option at the discretion of the Lessor/registered
owner to purchase the vehicle at a fair market
value upon mutual consent after the expiry of the
agreement. However, this buyback clause is not to
be construed to be conferring any enforceable right
on the Lessee but the first option to buy the car
shall be that of the Lessee herein.
xxx xxx
xxx
10. Completion of contract: Upon successful
completion of the terms of this agreement, the
Lessor shall receive the leased Vehicle in proper
working condition including the tyres and battery
in good condition with normal wear and tear
acceptable depending on the period o[censored]se.
xxx xxx
xxx
15. Issue of Preference Shares: The Lessee
undertakes to issue redeemable Preference shares
to the Lessor towards the margin money paid
(excluding Insurance & RTO Charges) which will
be held by the Lessor as security for the entire
period of the validity of the agreement being 60
months from the date of issue to ensure smooth
installment payments to the bank and the lease/hire
charges to the Lessor."
5. The complainant respondent No.2, pursuant to the said
advertisement, invested a sum of Rs.97, 907/-. Indisputably, he was paid
6
Rs.4, 000/- per month for a period of five years. However, despite demand,
he was not given the car. He was, however, given three post-dated cheques
of ABN Amro Bank amount to Rs. 25, 000/-, Rs.20, 000/- and Rs.10, 000/-
although he had asked for the said amount in cash.
6. In the said FIR, it was inter alia alleged:
"As mentioned above, Directors of the said
Company in their office without listening anything
from me, as per their own wishes making changes
on the document of agreement, when I noticed that
then I enquired about the same in more detail. It is
transpired that the said company by showing false
inducement about big return in various financial
schemes and transferring the motor vehicle in the
name of investor, till date has accepted deposits of
crores of rupees under various schemes from
25000 investors. But I came to know that said
company has purchased motor car only in the
name of 500 investors.
All aspect of above mentioned schemes
are in existence only on paper but in reality not
even a single scheme is in force as per the scheme
shown on the document. I also came to know that
apart from the above mentioned office of the
company at Bombay, and other places said
company has office on rental basis and Sayyed
Masood Jamadar, in collusion with other directors
of the Company, induces people for making
investment and amount invested by people is being
utilized for other purpose, other than the original
purpose and is being utilized personally or for
some other purposes. The said company on the
internet at its website namely
www.citylimouzines.com & www.city-money.com
has projected the said company as bearing ISO-
[protected] certification and inducing common
poor people to invest money in the said company
and thereby cheating the people. If immediate
legal action is not taken against the said company
then there will be huge financial loss to ordinary
investors. Since Directors of the said company
threatened investors whenever investors go to ask
back money therefore, rein of fear against them is
created.
Above mentioned persons namely Sayyed
Mohammad Masood Jamadar and Geeta Razzaki
and other persons have collusively established City
Limouzines Ltd. Company and through that
company several other companies are established
and through them false inducement is given and
financial investments is accepted from the people
and misappropriation of the same on large scale is
done and defrauded citizens and Government."
7. The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court praying for quashing the said FIR.
The Division Bench of the High Court keeping in view the various
clauses in the agreement entered into by and between the complainant and
the said Company opined that although the investor might have been entitled
to the car at the end of the period of five years, but as there has been no
intention to defraud him at the time of inception of execution of the
agreement and the dispute between the parties revolved on interpretation of
the clauses of the agreement, no offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B
8
of the Indian Penal Code has been made out, stating:
"13. At the cost of repetition we may mention
that the facts in the present case are not at dispute
at all that the investment made by each of the
consumers to the tune of Rs.97, 907/- and in return
they received Rs.2, 40, 000/-. The only question
which remained was whether the investors were
entitled to the car at the end of the period of five
years or not. There has been no intention to
defraud at the time of inception of execution of the
agreement. There can be made several
interpretations of the clauses in the agreement if
the agreement is taken as a whole. It is a well
accepted principle of interpretation that while
interpreting clause of agreement, whole of the
agreement has to be taken into consideration.
Applying the principles laid down by the various
judgments of the Supreme Court hereinabove
referred, we do not think that in the facts and
circumstances of the case an offence of cheating is
made out."
The High Court, however, in its judgment only considered the case
from the point of view of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and not
Sections 406 and 120B thereof.
8. Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State would contend that having regard to the well settled principle of
law that the High Court does not quash an FIR save and except sparingly
and in rarest of rare cases, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
9. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to various grounds taken
in this Appeal to contend that the investigation so far conducted reveals that
a large number of illegalities have been committed by the said Company
including the violation of the provisions of Section 45(1A) of the Reserve
Bank of India Act.
10. Ms. Bindu K. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, would take us through the FIR, agreement
entered into by and between the parties, Lessee's covenants therein as also
other documents to contend that no offence can be said to have been made
out either under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 420
thereof. It was urged that as no car was purchased in the name of the
respondent No.2, there was no property and, thus, there was neither any
question of any entrustment thereof nor any misappropriation. The
complainant himself having redeemed the merging money in terms of the
provisions of the agreement, the ingredients of the offence of Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. Drawing our
attention to the definition of `cheating' as contained in Section 415 of the
Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel would contend that neither there was
any inducement nor deception having been made and pursuant to the
agreement no property having been delivered in favour of the accused by the
complainant nor there was any act of omission on his part which caused or
10
likely to cause any damage to the property, the question of commission of
any offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise.
11. The legal position in regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High
court for quashing of an FIR is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to
delve deep thereinto as the propositions of law have recently been stated by
this Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [(2009) 1 SCC 516] in the
following terms:
"15. Propositions of law which emerge from
the said decisions are:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not
exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a
criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first
information report unless the allegations
contained therein, even if given face value and
taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed
no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and
except in very exceptional circumstances,
would not look to any document relied upon by
the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very
sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR
disclose commission of an offence, the Court
shall not go beyond the same and pass an order
in favour of the accused to hold absence of any
mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute,
the same by itself may not be a ground to hold
that the criminal proceedings should not be
allowed to continue."
Yet again in Mahesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009
(4) SCALE 66], this Court stated the law thus:
"13. The principle providing for exercise of the
power by a High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal
proceeding is well known. The court shall
ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia,
in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or
the Complaint Petition even if on face value are
taken to be correct in their entirety, does not
disclose commission of an offence."
We may also notice that in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain [(2008) 1 SCC 213], this Court laid down the law
in the following terms:
"14. The learned counsel would submit that
prima facie the girl was above 16 years and she
being a consenting party and having been getting
consideration, no case under Section 376 IPC has
been made out and, thus, this Court should not
interfere with the impugned judgment."
12. There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that a simple
breach of contract or a case involving pure civil dispute would not attract the
penal provisions contained in the Indian Penal Code either under Section
406 or Section 420 thereof.
13. Had the dispute between the parties rested in the aforementioned
premise, probably we would not have interfered with the judgment of the
High Court; but then, our attention has been drawn to certain evidences
12
which have surfaced during investigation and disclosed before us by the
State in the grounds stated in this Memo of Appeal.
We may notice a few of them:
"cc) Because preliminary findings shows that
public at large especially middle class and
lower class people have invested their hard
earned money and or money received at the
time of their VRS or amount received from
insurance companies after casualty of their
legal heirs, are likely to be cheated by the
inducement of "Rosy picture" shown by the
company with respect to motor vehicle
scheme. Because as soon as influx of
investors stops the company will stop
payment to the old investors, as the
company does not have any type of business
which generates fair legal income/profit.
xxx xxx xxx
ff) Because another witness has stated in his
statement dated 03/10/07 that he has
invested Rs.1, 07, 000 for Maruti Omni in the
month of January 2005 immediately after
the agreement he has received three post
dated cheques of Rs.4000/- each from CLIL.
Company has taken Rs.25, 630/- for RTO &
Insurance Charges but has not purchased a
vehicle in his name.
xxx xxx xxx
ii) Because another witness in his statement
dated 17/11/07 that he is running Travelling
Business in the name as "Amey Tourist."
He owns Maruti Esteem Car No. MH-01-
JA-6710 and the same is being used for his
business purpose. Neither he has given his
said m/v to CLIL nor has invested money in
C.L.I.L. An enquiry has been made with
Shri Arun Potade because CLIL data on first
mirror image shows this car as one which is
from their scheme as Indica and registered
in the name of Smt. Jayshree Devgude (File
no. 15971 of CLIL).
jj) Because another witness has stated in his
statement dated 19/11/07 that he had Kinetic
Honda Scooter No. MH-01-E-6343 in his
name but due to rusting/damage he had
scraped the said m/v. He does not know
anything about CLIL. An enquiry has been
made with Shri Deepak R. Kalwar because
CLIL data on first mirror image shows that
Maruti Omni Car No. MH-01-E-6343 has
been registered in the name of one Smt.
Asha Thakur (file no.- 1738 of CLIL) and
enquiry with RTO revealed that the vehicle
No. MH-01-E-6343 is Kinetic Honda
Scooter and registered in the name of
Deepak Kalwar."
14. The allegation made in the FIR and the materials collected during
investigation, in our considered opinion, should be allowed to be taken to its
logical end.
15. We must, however, acknowledge that Ms. Nair has cited the
following decisions for our consideration.
i. Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr. [(2001) 3 SCC 513]
ii. Radha Ballav Pal & Anr. vs. Emperor [AIR 1939 Calcutta 327]
14
iii. Velji Raghavji Patel vs. The State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC
1433]
iv. Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. [(2007) 7
SCC 373]
v. All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Ors. vs. Dhanesh
Badarmal Jain & Anr. [(2007) 14 SCC 776]
vi. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. [(2009)
1 SCALE 252]
vii. U. Dhar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2003) 2 SCC 219]
viii. Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC
336]
In Alpic Finance Ltd. (supra) the dispute was found to be of pure civil
nature.
In Radha Ballav Pal & Anr (supra), the Calcutta High Court looked to
the policies and schemes floated by the Company to opine that in the fact of
the said case no case has been made out for convicting the appellant therein.
But the matter having reached the High court after a judgment of conviction
was recorded, all the materials were brought on record by the parties by that
time.
In Velji Raghavji Patel (supra), it involved a question of dealing
with the assets of a partnership firm by a partner.
In Vir Prakash Sharma (supra), this case primarily revolved around
bouncing of a cheque.
In Dhanesh Badarmal Jain (supra), the court found only a civil
liability on the part of the accused and opined that it was at best a case of
interpretation of agreement, stating
"16. We are of the opinion that the allegations
made in the complaint petition, even if given face
value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not
disclose an offence. For the said purpose, this
Court may not only take into consideration the
admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into
the pleadings of Respondent 1-plaintiff in the suit.
No allegation whatsoever was made against the
appellants herein in the notice. What was
contended was negligence and/or breach of
contract on the part of the carriers and their agent.
Breach of contract simpliciter does not constitute
an offence. For the said purpose, allegations in the
complaint petition must disclose the necessary
ingredients therefor. Where a civil suit is pending
and the complaint petition has been filed one year
after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose
of finding out as to whether the said allegations are
prima facie correct, take into consideration the
correspondences exchanged by the parties and
other admitted documents. It is one thing to say
that the Court at this juncture would not consider
the defence of the accused but it is another
thing to say that for exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also
to look to the admitted documents. Criminal
proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is
found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the
16
process of the court. Superior courts while
exercising this power should also strive to serve
the ends of justice."
Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. (supra) involved a pure civil dispute dealing
with the compensation and insurance policies in the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal (MACT).
Similar was the position in Uma Shankar Gopalika (supra) wherein
it was stated:
"...It is well settled that every breach of
contract would not give rise to an offence of
cheating and only in those cases breach of contract
would amount to cheating where there was any
deception played at the very inception. If the
intention to cheat has developed later on, the same
cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it
has nowhere been stated that at the very inception
there was any intention on behalf of the accused
persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for
an offence under Section 420 IPC."
Hence the petition of complainant did not disclose any criminal
offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was purely civil in nature.
16. We have, however, no doubt in our mind that the Investigating
Officer shall conduct the investigation fairly and impartially and shall allow
the company to carry on its business without any hindrance whatsoever. If
any books of account or other documents are required, the Investigating
Officer subject to just exceptions may take the xerox copies thereof duly
certified by the accused as also an undertaking that, as and when called
upon, they would produce the said books of account in a court of law.
Subject to the aforementioned directions, the Investigating Officer
shall carry out the investigation in accordance with law.
17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the materials which
have surfaced during investigation, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with the
aforementioned directions.
...J.
[S.B. Sinha]
...J.
[Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
August 4, 2009
SUPR EME COUR T OF I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1416 OF 2009 ARISING OUT OF
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3176/2008
STATE OF MAHARSHTRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date: 04/08/2009 This Petition was called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Niraj Gupta, Adv.
Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv
______
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising of His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak
Verma.
Leave granted.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly in view of the materials which have surfaced during
investigation, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set
aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with the directions recorded
in the signed reportable judgment.
(KALYANI GUPTA) (PUSHAP LATA
SR. P.A. BHARDWAJ)
COURT MASTER
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _________OF 2009
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3176 of 2008]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
APPELLANT
Versus
SAYED MOHAMMED MASOOD & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Maharashtra is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2008 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 2333 of 2007 quashing a First Information Report ("FIR") lodged by the
respondent No.2 herein at the Cuff Parade Police Station, Mumbai.
4
3. The first respondent is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s
City Limouzines (India) Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred for the sake of
brevity as, "the said Company"). He established the said Company. A
scheme known as "Go/Vehicle on rental basis and earning by sitting at
home" was floated. In terms of the said Scheme, assurances were given to
the people for earning money in easy way. A public advertisement was also
issued in a newspaper. They also issued pamphlets and thereby attracted
huge investments. In terms of the said Scheme, Rs.97, 907/- was to be
invested in `rent a car' scheme wherein agreement was executed inter alia
providing that the car would be purchased in the name of investor but would
be used by the Company on rent to others wherefor the investor would
receive a sum of Rs.4, 000/- per month for a period of five years. After 60
months, i.e., at the end of the agreement, the investor may take back his car
in proper working condition. It was equally provided that an investor was
entitled to inspect the vehicle given on lease/rent once in three months upon
giving 15 days prior notice.
4. Clauses 4, 8, 10 and 15 of the said agreement read as under:
"4. Inspection: The Lessor is entitled to
inspect the Vehicle given on Lease/rent once in 3
months by giving 15 days prior notice to the above
stated address and inspect the vehicle at any of the
offices of the Lessee in India.
xxx xxx
xxx
8. Buy Back: The Lessee will have the
option at the discretion of the Lessor/registered
owner to purchase the vehicle at a fair market
value upon mutual consent after the expiry of the
agreement. However, this buyback clause is not to
be construed to be conferring any enforceable right
on the Lessee but the first option to buy the car
shall be that of the Lessee herein.
xxx xxx
xxx
10. Completion of contract: Upon successful
completion of the terms of this agreement, the
Lessor shall receive the leased Vehicle in proper
working condition including the tyres and battery
in good condition with normal wear and tear
acceptable depending on the period o[censored]se.
xxx xxx
xxx
15. Issue of Preference Shares: The Lessee
undertakes to issue redeemable Preference shares
to the Lessor towards the margin money paid
(excluding Insurance & RTO Charges) which will
be held by the Lessor as security for the entire
period of the validity of the agreement being 60
months from the date of issue to ensure smooth
installment payments to the bank and the lease/hire
charges to the Lessor."
5. The complainant respondent No.2, pursuant to the said
advertisement, invested a sum of Rs.97, 907/-. Indisputably, he was paid
6
Rs.4, 000/- per month for a period of five years. However, despite demand,
he was not given the car. He was, however, given three post-dated cheques
of ABN Amro Bank amount to Rs. 25, 000/-, Rs.20, 000/- and Rs.10, 000/-
although he had asked for the said amount in cash.
6. In the said FIR, it was inter alia alleged:
"As mentioned above, Directors of the said
Company in their office without listening anything
from me, as per their own wishes making changes
on the document of agreement, when I noticed that
then I enquired about the same in more detail. It is
transpired that the said company by showing false
inducement about big return in various financial
schemes and transferring the motor vehicle in the
name of investor, till date has accepted deposits of
crores of rupees under various schemes from
25000 investors. But I came to know that said
company has purchased motor car only in the
name of 500 investors.
All aspect of above mentioned schemes
are in existence only on paper but in reality not
even a single scheme is in force as per the scheme
shown on the document. I also came to know that
apart from the above mentioned office of the
company at Bombay, and other places said
company has office on rental basis and Sayyed
Masood Jamadar, in collusion with other directors
of the Company, induces people for making
investment and amount invested by people is being
utilized for other purpose, other than the original
purpose and is being utilized personally or for
some other purposes. The said company on the
internet at its website namely
www.citylimouzines.com & www.city-money.com
has projected the said company as bearing ISO-
[protected] certification and inducing common
poor people to invest money in the said company
and thereby cheating the people. If immediate
legal action is not taken against the said company
then there will be huge financial loss to ordinary
investors. Since Directors of the said company
threatened investors whenever investors go to ask
back money therefore, rein of fear against them is
created.
Above mentioned persons namely Sayyed
Mohammad Masood Jamadar and Geeta Razzaki
and other persons have collusively established City
Limouzines Ltd. Company and through that
company several other companies are established
and through them false inducement is given and
financial investments is accepted from the people
and misappropriation of the same on large scale is
done and defrauded citizens and Government."
7. The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court praying for quashing the said FIR.
The Division Bench of the High Court keeping in view the various
clauses in the agreement entered into by and between the complainant and
the said Company opined that although the investor might have been entitled
to the car at the end of the period of five years, but as there has been no
intention to defraud him at the time of inception of execution of the
agreement and the dispute between the parties revolved on interpretation of
the clauses of the agreement, no offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B
8
of the Indian Penal Code has been made out, stating:
"13. At the cost of repetition we may mention
that the facts in the present case are not at dispute
at all that the investment made by each of the
consumers to the tune of Rs.97, 907/- and in return
they received Rs.2, 40, 000/-. The only question
which remained was whether the investors were
entitled to the car at the end of the period of five
years or not. There has been no intention to
defraud at the time of inception of execution of the
agreement. There can be made several
interpretations of the clauses in the agreement if
the agreement is taken as a whole. It is a well
accepted principle of interpretation that while
interpreting clause of agreement, whole of the
agreement has to be taken into consideration.
Applying the principles laid down by the various
judgments of the Supreme Court hereinabove
referred, we do not think that in the facts and
circumstances of the case an offence of cheating is
made out."
The High Court, however, in its judgment only considered the case
from the point of view of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and not
Sections 406 and 120B thereof.
8. Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the State would contend that having regard to the well settled principle of
law that the High Court does not quash an FIR save and except sparingly
and in rarest of rare cases, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
9. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to various grounds taken
in this Appeal to contend that the investigation so far conducted reveals that
a large number of illegalities have been committed by the said Company
including the violation of the provisions of Section 45(1A) of the Reserve
Bank of India Act.
10. Ms. Bindu K. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, would take us through the FIR, agreement
entered into by and between the parties, Lessee's covenants therein as also
other documents to contend that no offence can be said to have been made
out either under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 420
thereof. It was urged that as no car was purchased in the name of the
respondent No.2, there was no property and, thus, there was neither any
question of any entrustment thereof nor any misappropriation. The
complainant himself having redeemed the merging money in terms of the
provisions of the agreement, the ingredients of the offence of Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been made out. Drawing our
attention to the definition of `cheating' as contained in Section 415 of the
Indian Penal Code, the learned counsel would contend that neither there was
any inducement nor deception having been made and pursuant to the
agreement no property having been delivered in favour of the accused by the
complainant nor there was any act of omission on his part which caused or
10
likely to cause any damage to the property, the question of commission of
any offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise.
11. The legal position in regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High
court for quashing of an FIR is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to
delve deep thereinto as the propositions of law have recently been stated by
this Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [(2009) 1 SCC 516] in the
following terms:
"15. Propositions of law which emerge from
the said decisions are:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not
exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a
criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first
information report unless the allegations
contained therein, even if given face value and
taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed
no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and
except in very exceptional circumstances,
would not look to any document relied upon by
the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very
sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR
disclose commission of an offence, the Court
shall not go beyond the same and pass an order
in favour of the accused to hold absence of any
mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute,
the same by itself may not be a ground to hold
that the criminal proceedings should not be
allowed to continue."
Yet again in Mahesh Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2009
(4) SCALE 66], this Court stated the law thus:
"13. The principle providing for exercise of the
power by a High Court under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal
proceeding is well known. The court shall
ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia,
in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or
the Complaint Petition even if on face value are
taken to be correct in their entirety, does not
disclose commission of an offence."
We may also notice that in State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain [(2008) 1 SCC 213], this Court laid down the law
in the following terms:
"14. The learned counsel would submit that
prima facie the girl was above 16 years and she
being a consenting party and having been getting
consideration, no case under Section 376 IPC has
been made out and, thus, this Court should not
interfere with the impugned judgment."
12. There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that a simple
breach of contract or a case involving pure civil dispute would not attract the
penal provisions contained in the Indian Penal Code either under Section
406 or Section 420 thereof.
13. Had the dispute between the parties rested in the aforementioned
premise, probably we would not have interfered with the judgment of the
High Court; but then, our attention has been drawn to certain evidences
12
which have surfaced during investigation and disclosed before us by the
State in the grounds stated in this Memo of Appeal.
We may notice a few of them:
"cc) Because preliminary findings shows that
public at large especially middle class and
lower class people have invested their hard
earned money and or money received at the
time of their VRS or amount received from
insurance companies after casualty of their
legal heirs, are likely to be cheated by the
inducement of "Rosy picture" shown by the
company with respect to motor vehicle
scheme. Because as soon as influx of
investors stops the company will stop
payment to the old investors, as the
company does not have any type of business
which generates fair legal income/profit.
xxx xxx xxx
ff) Because another witness has stated in his
statement dated 03/10/07 that he has
invested Rs.1, 07, 000 for Maruti Omni in the
month of January 2005 immediately after
the agreement he has received three post
dated cheques of Rs.4000/- each from CLIL.
Company has taken Rs.25, 630/- for RTO &
Insurance Charges but has not purchased a
vehicle in his name.
xxx xxx xxx
ii) Because another witness in his statement
dated 17/11/07 that he is running Travelling
Business in the name as "Amey Tourist."
He owns Maruti Esteem Car No. MH-01-
JA-6710 and the same is being used for his
business purpose. Neither he has given his
said m/v to CLIL nor has invested money in
C.L.I.L. An enquiry has been made with
Shri Arun Potade because CLIL data on first
mirror image shows this car as one which is
from their scheme as Indica and registered
in the name of Smt. Jayshree Devgude (File
no. 15971 of CLIL).
jj) Because another witness has stated in his
statement dated 19/11/07 that he had Kinetic
Honda Scooter No. MH-01-E-6343 in his
name but due to rusting/damage he had
scraped the said m/v. He does not know
anything about CLIL. An enquiry has been
made with Shri Deepak R. Kalwar because
CLIL data on first mirror image shows that
Maruti Omni Car No. MH-01-E-6343 has
been registered in the name of one Smt.
Asha Thakur (file no.- 1738 of CLIL) and
enquiry with RTO revealed that the vehicle
No. MH-01-E-6343 is Kinetic Honda
Scooter and registered in the name of
Deepak Kalwar."
14. The allegation made in the FIR and the materials collected during
investigation, in our considered opinion, should be allowed to be taken to its
logical end.
15. We must, however, acknowledge that Ms. Nair has cited the
following decisions for our consideration.
i. Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr. [(2001) 3 SCC 513]
ii. Radha Ballav Pal & Anr. vs. Emperor [AIR 1939 Calcutta 327]
14
iii. Velji Raghavji Patel vs. The State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC
1433]
iv. Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. [(2007) 7
SCC 373]
v. All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited & Ors. vs. Dhanesh
Badarmal Jain & Anr. [(2007) 14 SCC 776]
vi. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. [(2009)
1 SCALE 252]
vii. U. Dhar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2003) 2 SCC 219]
viii. Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC
336]
In Alpic Finance Ltd. (supra) the dispute was found to be of pure civil
nature.
In Radha Ballav Pal & Anr (supra), the Calcutta High Court looked to
the policies and schemes floated by the Company to opine that in the fact of
the said case no case has been made out for convicting the appellant therein.
But the matter having reached the High court after a judgment of conviction
was recorded, all the materials were brought on record by the parties by that
time.
In Velji Raghavji Patel (supra), it involved a question of dealing
with the assets of a partnership firm by a partner.
In Vir Prakash Sharma (supra), this case primarily revolved around
bouncing of a cheque.
In Dhanesh Badarmal Jain (supra), the court found only a civil
liability on the part of the accused and opined that it was at best a case of
interpretation of agreement, stating
"16. We are of the opinion that the allegations
made in the complaint petition, even if given face
value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not
disclose an offence. For the said purpose, this
Court may not only take into consideration the
admitted facts but it is also permissible to look into
the pleadings of Respondent 1-plaintiff in the suit.
No allegation whatsoever was made against the
appellants herein in the notice. What was
contended was negligence and/or breach of
contract on the part of the carriers and their agent.
Breach of contract simpliciter does not constitute
an offence. For the said purpose, allegations in the
complaint petition must disclose the necessary
ingredients therefor. Where a civil suit is pending
and the complaint petition has been filed one year
after filing of the civil suit, we may for the purpose
of finding out as to whether the said allegations are
prima facie correct, take into consideration the
correspondences exchanged by the parties and
other admitted documents. It is one thing to say
that the Court at this juncture would not consider
the defence of the accused but it is another
thing to say that for exercising the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, it is impermissible also
to look to the admitted documents. Criminal
proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is
found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the
16
process of the court. Superior courts while
exercising this power should also strive to serve
the ends of justice."
Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. (supra) involved a pure civil dispute dealing
with the compensation and insurance policies in the Motor Vehicle Claims
Tribunal (MACT).
Similar was the position in Uma Shankar Gopalika (supra) wherein
it was stated:
"...It is well settled that every breach of
contract would not give rise to an offence of
cheating and only in those cases breach of contract
would amount to cheating where there was any
deception played at the very inception. If the
intention to cheat has developed later on, the same
cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it
has nowhere been stated that at the very inception
there was any intention on behalf of the accused
persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for
an offence under Section 420 IPC."
Hence the petition of complainant did not disclose any criminal
offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was purely civil in nature.
16. We have, however, no doubt in our mind that the Investigating
Officer shall conduct the investigation fairly and impartially and shall allow
the company to carry on its business without any hindrance whatsoever. If
any books of account or other documents are required, the Investigating
Officer subject to just exceptions may take the xerox copies thereof duly
certified by the accused as also an undertaking that, as and when called
upon, they would produce the said books of account in a court of law.
Subject to the aforementioned directions, the Investigating Officer
shall carry out the investigation in accordance with law.
17. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the materials which
have surfaced during investigation, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with the
aforementioned directions.
...J.
[S.B. Sinha]
...J.
[Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
August 4, 2009
Arrested City Limo director claims she lost money too
C Unnikrishnan | TNN
Mumbai: Geeta Razzaki, one of the arrested directors of tainted investment company City Limouzines, has claimed that she too lost money in the company.
On November 25, a few hours before she was arrested, she told a group of investors in Pune that she invested Rs 1 crore and her sister another Rs 25 lakh. The investors were on her trail after they came to know that she was in Pune.
While the meeting was on, one of the investors, Manohar Lohia, informed the Mumbai police. She was then picked up from her Pune flat. In the recorded conversation, Geeta said she had not been paid the salary for the past four months and had no clue about the wherabouts of the chairman S M Masood. She claimed to have been getting a salary of Rs 1 lakh.
According to the police, Geeta and her husband Umar, who too is in custody, were introduced to Masood through their daughter Seema in 1988. Seema ran a boutique at Pedder Road and Masood was a regular visitor. In 2001 all the three were made directors of the company, a police officer said. Seemas anticipatory bail application is coming up for hearing in the sessions court on Decemeber 1.
The police said though the couple was not cooperating, they were ascertaining the diversion of funds collected by the company. Geeta told the investors that she was just an employee and the company was responsible for the mess.
C Unnikrishnan | TNN
Mumbai: Geeta Razzaki, one of the arrested directors of tainted investment company City Limouzines, has claimed that she too lost money in the company.
On November 25, a few hours before she was arrested, she told a group of investors in Pune that she invested Rs 1 crore and her sister another Rs 25 lakh. The investors were on her trail after they came to know that she was in Pune.
While the meeting was on, one of the investors, Manohar Lohia, informed the Mumbai police. She was then picked up from her Pune flat. In the recorded conversation, Geeta said she had not been paid the salary for the past four months and had no clue about the wherabouts of the chairman S M Masood. She claimed to have been getting a salary of Rs 1 lakh.
According to the police, Geeta and her husband Umar, who too is in custody, were introduced to Masood through their daughter Seema in 1988. Seema ran a boutique at Pedder Road and Masood was a regular visitor. In 2001 all the three were made directors of the company, a police officer said. Seemas anticipatory bail application is coming up for hearing in the sessions court on Decemeber 1.
The police said though the couple was not cooperating, they were ascertaining the diversion of funds collected by the company. Geeta told the investors that she was just an employee and the company was responsible for the mess.
Hi friends,
Look no further!! I made use of a splendid opportunity and now I am making lots of money. Don't worry, this is not some xyz company. It is very genuine, and their system is very transparent. It works for each individual wonderfully well. I invite you all to take a look at this opportunity and make a right decision at the right time. You will be happy you did.
http://www.ourebiz.net/iboRegistration.php?lid=11997
Look no further!! I made use of a splendid opportunity and now I am making lots of money. Don't worry, this is not some xyz company. It is very genuine, and their system is very transparent. It works for each individual wonderfully well. I invite you all to take a look at this opportunity and make a right decision at the right time. You will be happy you did.
http://www.ourebiz.net/iboRegistration.php?lid=11997
we have to wait till the problem is solved in high court. Mr.Masood must come forward to protect the interests of thounds of investers by restartig his business. or to take steps to re pay the amounts to the in vesters.
Please can any body tell, our money will be returned to us our not? What we can expect from city real com.
This is very important that you email and express your problem regarding city real com to the following email..
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Officer's Name : Avinash K Srivastava
Designation : Joint Secretary/CVO & PG
Address : Room No.509, A-Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
Telephone No. : [protected]delhi)
E Mail : [protected]@mca.gov.in
Good luck..
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Officer's Name : Avinash K Srivastava
Designation : Joint Secretary/CVO & PG
Address : Room No.509, A-Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
Telephone No. : [protected]delhi)
E Mail : [protected]@mca.gov.in
Good luck..
here is the up date copied form google group
Folks-
The rally was a success. Others who attended the rally, please do write in your comments. I got to meet Deepak, Senapti and others at the rally.
Approx 400 people were present at noon and then the investors were coming in and going. we had set up a stage and quite a few people spoke to the investors. I tried to answer all possible questions ans also provide steps that were being taken to recover our funds. Most imp being to file police complaints and FIRS’s at a police station near you starting on Monday morning. A legal opinion will be available by day after which will allow us to file complaints. Secondly, I requested all the Mumbai investors to please be present at all court proceedings so they are aware of all happenings. We collected over 1400 mobile numbers, which will be added to my SMS database for weekly and imp updates.
There were a few groups that were trying to collect funds from investors by promising fighting in the court. I suggest everyone to be extra cautious about shelling out any money unless there is a proven track record. Please find out about total expenses. Pay straight to the advocate instead of middle men. These are just some ways how you can save your hard earned money.
Folks-
The rally was a success. Others who attended the rally, please do write in your comments. I got to meet Deepak, Senapti and others at the rally.
Approx 400 people were present at noon and then the investors were coming in and going. we had set up a stage and quite a few people spoke to the investors. I tried to answer all possible questions ans also provide steps that were being taken to recover our funds. Most imp being to file police complaints and FIRS’s at a police station near you starting on Monday morning. A legal opinion will be available by day after which will allow us to file complaints. Secondly, I requested all the Mumbai investors to please be present at all court proceedings so they are aware of all happenings. We collected over 1400 mobile numbers, which will be added to my SMS database for weekly and imp updates.
There were a few groups that were trying to collect funds from investors by promising fighting in the court. I suggest everyone to be extra cautious about shelling out any money unless there is a proven track record. Please find out about total expenses. Pay straight to the advocate instead of middle men. These are just some ways how you can save your hard earned money.
Lastly, another rally is being planned in 2 weeks time. This time, we will have a larger crowd and it will be kept on a sunday. Media will be called again and these protests will continue till we start seeing some results. I suggest Delhi and Chennai to sync the rallies with the next Mumbai date. Lets get rocking!
Pictures from today’s rally will be posted shortly.
A hearty thanks to all who contributed, attended, helped and made this rally a success.
Manohar
Pictures from today’s rally will be posted shortly.
A hearty thanks to all who contributed, attended, helped and made this rally a success.
Manohar
I Reached venue by 12.30 hrs, Numbering crowds present may be approximately 200 to 300 nos. not as expected like 14th oct. in Wilson school).
Speaker with dark goggles on, he was Manohar.
Updates :
1)Return investors principal amount at one shot with no modifying scheme.
2)High Court hearing tomorrow (3rd Dec) in court no 6 by 11.00 hrs. against the transfer petition filed ( appeal to H.C on rejecting by session court ).
3)Session Court hearing on 4th Dec by 11.00 hrs.
4)On outcome of HC hearing tomorrow we all investors should lodge FIR (after Saturday)Investments to the nearest police station even if those who have lodged complain with EOW before.
Speaker with dark goggles on, he was Manohar.
Updates :
1)Return investors principal amount at one shot with no modifying scheme.
2)High Court hearing tomorrow (3rd Dec) in court no 6 by 11.00 hrs. against the transfer petition filed ( appeal to H.C on rejecting by session court ).
3)Session Court hearing on 4th Dec by 11.00 hrs.
4)On outcome of HC hearing tomorrow we all investors should lodge FIR (after Saturday)Investments to the nearest police station even if those who have lodged complain with EOW before.
5)All over in Maharashtra (except Nagpur) FIR complaint lodged could be collected internally together and put into the Bombay High Court.
6)Manohar has suggested to discuss personally with Adv. Roopesh R Jaiswal(prop.) of JAISWAL ASSOCIATES (Adv. & Legal consultants) contact : [protected] / [protected] / 6615443. can take care of FIR filing @ Rs 500/- per person.
7)Common one date to be decided in next rally for depositing company's monthly rent cheque in the bank so as to have a good impact. Next Rally would be organized in next fifteen days offcourse when Home
Minister and CM both remain present in their office.
8)All o[censored]s were asked to write their contact so as to intimates the updates of city group.
9)At 4.00 p.m police officials informed Mr Manohar that Home Minister has not come to office today and C.M is aware of this case and he will help. So it is positive.
10)Meanwhile it is known V.N ASSOCIATES (Company’s behalf) is under going process for petition file in HC for the next meeting dates with the Investors.
“WE INVESTORS DON’T HAVE CHOICE SHOULD REQUEST PLEAD BEFORE JUSTICE OF INDIA, YES IT IS POSSIBLE WE PUT ALL OUR EFFORTS TO PRESSURISE GOVT. BODIES, HIGH COURT AND BIG BOSS MASOOD WHO DOESN’T HAVE CHOICE THAN ACCEPTING SENTENCED TO 300 MONTHS IN JAIL”
.THANKS JAYANTHA ATUAL MAJUMDAR JI COPIED FROM CITY INVESTRORS.NING
6)Manohar has suggested to discuss personally with Adv. Roopesh R Jaiswal(prop.) of JAISWAL ASSOCIATES (Adv. & Legal consultants) contact : [protected] / [protected] / 6615443. can take care of FIR filing @ Rs 500/- per person.
7)Common one date to be decided in next rally for depositing company's monthly rent cheque in the bank so as to have a good impact. Next Rally would be organized in next fifteen days offcourse when Home
Minister and CM both remain present in their office.
8)All o[censored]s were asked to write their contact so as to intimates the updates of city group.
9)At 4.00 p.m police officials informed Mr Manohar that Home Minister has not come to office today and C.M is aware of this case and he will help. So it is positive.
10)Meanwhile it is known V.N ASSOCIATES (Company’s behalf) is under going process for petition file in HC for the next meeting dates with the Investors.
“WE INVESTORS DON’T HAVE CHOICE SHOULD REQUEST PLEAD BEFORE JUSTICE OF INDIA, YES IT IS POSSIBLE WE PUT ALL OUR EFFORTS TO PRESSURISE GOVT. BODIES, HIGH COURT AND BIG BOSS MASOOD WHO DOESN’T HAVE CHOICE THAN ACCEPTING SENTENCED TO 300 MONTHS IN JAIL”
.THANKS JAYANTHA ATUAL MAJUMDAR JI COPIED FROM CITY INVESTRORS.NING
dear ganeshvankatachalam ji
thanks for all latest information. I am 67 years old and request u sir, to kindly keep on inform me the latest developments on my Delhi mobile no. [protected] or e-mail me. I have already joined ur go-petition. please do help me as I along with my family have been suffering from acute financial trouble and facing many problems at this age.
best wishes and lots of lv
c. m. gulati
thanks for all latest information. I am 67 years old and request u sir, to kindly keep on inform me the latest developments on my Delhi mobile no. [protected] or e-mail me. I have already joined ur go-petition. please do help me as I along with my family have been suffering from acute financial trouble and facing many problems at this age.
best wishes and lots of lv
c. m. gulati
today Masood got interim protection till Dec 11th. His lawyer Mr. Jha told Judge Kanade about a scheme where Masood plans to sell some assets to repay the investors. Judge kanade decided to give him a chance. He has also been told to report to Mumbai EOW within a week's time.
Masood's plans are working by keeping this matter entangled in courts. We will not stop the protests and will keep the pressure on the govt to arrest him. All these are delay tactics.
thanks, Manoharji
Masood's plans are working by keeping this matter entangled in courts. We will not stop the protests and will keep the pressure on the govt to arrest him. All these are delay tactics.
thanks, Manoharji
Masood has been told to be present at Mumbai EOW on Monday at 11am to 5pm then again on Tue and Wed. Police will interrogate him and see if the scheme explained in court is viable. The scheme has not been audited so it may be false, but police will verify that.
Hosting another Rally and involving media is extremely important now, so we need to get this going. We cannot let Masood walk freely on the streets of Mumbai.
thanks, Manoharji
Hosting another Rally and involving media is extremely important now, so we need to get this going. We cannot let Masood walk freely on the streets of Mumbai.
thanks, Manoharji
S M Masood, chief of investment company City Groups, has been granted interim protection from arrest till December 11 after his lawyer assured the
Bombay high court to repay the investors.
Masood’s lawyer gave a two-page brief on the details of the money that the companies owed investors. The City Limouzines and City Realcom would liquidate their assets and repay the investors in three months, he said.
According to the scheme,
for City Limouzines, Rs 20 crore has to be paid to 20, 000 investors. Rs 200 crore was invested of which, the company had already repaid Rs 180 crore, he claimed. The company had assets of Rs 58 crore, he added.
In the case of City Realcom, it still has to pay Rs 160 crore and the total number of investors is 1 lakh. The company claims to have assets of Rs 180 crore.
Granting him the interim protection, Justice V M Kanade said Masood should report to EOW office for three days next week.
THANKX RAMESH COPIED FROM INVESTORS NING
Bombay high court to repay the investors.
Masood’s lawyer gave a two-page brief on the details of the money that the companies owed investors. The City Limouzines and City Realcom would liquidate their assets and repay the investors in three months, he said.
According to the scheme,
for City Limouzines, Rs 20 crore has to be paid to 20, 000 investors. Rs 200 crore was invested of which, the company had already repaid Rs 180 crore, he claimed. The company had assets of Rs 58 crore, he added.
In the case of City Realcom, it still has to pay Rs 160 crore and the total number of investors is 1 lakh. The company claims to have assets of Rs 180 crore.
Granting him the interim protection, Justice V M Kanade said Masood should report to EOW office for three days next week.
THANKX RAMESH COPIED FROM INVESTORS NING
Geeta Razzaki police custody extended to Dec 9, Rajesh Choudhary 7th Dec.
Company deposited 60 lakhs in court as a sign of good faith. A drop in the ocean but a good start.
thanks Manoharji, copied from google group
Company deposited 60 lakhs in court as a sign of good faith. A drop in the ocean but a good start.
thanks Manoharji, copied from google group
dear ganeshvenkatachalam sir,
god bless u, thanks for your valuable updates for all o[censored]s who are far away.
BELEIVE ME, UR UPDATE IS KEEPING US ALIVE
god bless u, thanks for your valuable updates for all o[censored]s who are far away.
BELEIVE ME, UR UPDATE IS KEEPING US ALIVE
we have got 6 cheque till now my 7th cheque has been be bounced.please inform me the further information.on this e-mail id.