Skip to main content

Charge Of Criminal/Quasi-Criminal Nature Can’t Be Allowed To Hang Over The Head Of A Citizen Indefinitely

In Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta vs Union of India & Ors., the objection of the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court was that a show cause notice was issued against Girdharilal Mehta (since deceased) and against one S.C. Mehta under Section 50 of the FERA calling upon the noticees to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under the said Act for alleged contravention of Section 8 (1) of FERA read with Sections 64(2) and 51 thereof. There is no one by the name of S.C. Mehta in the petitioner’s family. No further step beyond issuance of the show cause notice has been taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner therefore prayed for quashing of the show cause notice on the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the adjudication arising out of the said show cause notice causing worry, anxiety, expenses and disturbance to his vocation and peace of mind.

The Calcutta High Court referring to several judgments and quashing the notice held that it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to diligently proceed with the adjudication and come to a conclusion at an early date. A charge of a criminal or quasi- criminal nature cannot be allowed to hang over the head of a citizen indefinitely without the concerned authority coming to a conclusion as to whether or not there is substance in the charge. Just as a person against whom a quasi-criminal charge has been brought is liable to be punished if the charge is proved, equally, he is entitled to be exonerated of the charge if the charge cannot be established with proper evidence. Either way, the decision must be reached within a reasonable period of time. This is in public interest and is essential to preserve public confidence in the adjudication process. The prejudices that a charged person suffers by reason of undue long pendency of a proceeding against him are many fold as noted in some of the decisions discussed above.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more