Jagriti Upbhogta Kalyan Parishad & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
- SCC(1998) 5 SCC 640
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 2579
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court has granted multiple extensions of time for compliance with a monetary obligation and the applicant seeks further extension, the court may dismiss an application for additional time if the circumstances and conduct of the party do not warrant further indulgence, even if the party has not demonstrably defaulted on the extended deadline. Where a party before the court has collected substantial funds from consumers and there exists evidence suggesting misappropriation or misuse of those funds, the court has the power to freeze all bank accounts of the entity and its directors, and to direct attachment of moveable and immoveable property within specified jurisdictions, in order to protect the interests of the affected consumers and safeguard their deposits. Where criminal investigations into alleged economic offences by a respondent are ongoing, the court may direct the investigating authority to file a progress report within a specified period to ensure accountability and to inform the court of the state of the investigation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. An application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 12 for further extension of time to deposit the sum of rupees five lakhs. The said respondent was directed to deposit the said amount within two weeks under the Order dated November 17, 1997. The period for making the said deposit was extended by two weeks under the Order dated January 9, 1998.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the said respondent/applicant on this application. In our opinion the case is made out for grant of further time for making the said deposit. The application for extension of time is, therefore, dismissed.
3. Shri A.K. Ganguli, the learned senior counsel appearing as amicus-curiae, has pointed out that in the report of the Oil Co-ordination Committee, which is filed as annexure R-4 to the affidavit of Shri O.N. Singh, Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India, it is stated that respondent No. 12 has collected funds to the tune of Rs. 30 to 35 crores. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstance, we consider it necessary to give suitable directions for safeguarding the interest of the consumers who have made the deposit with respondent No. 12. It is, therefore, directed that -
(1) All the bank accounts of respondent No. 12, as well as the bank accounts of the directors of respondent No. 12 shall be frozen forthwith and the banks concerned shall not permit respondent No. 12 and their directors to operate the said accounts till further orders from this Court.
(2) The District Judges of Lucknow, Meerut, Mathura and Mainpuri in U.P. and District Judge having jurisdiction at Pipavav Port in Gujarat shall take immediate steps to . attach the properties (moveable as well as immovable) of respondent No. 12, set out hereunder, as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Shri Lalji Verma dated November 13, 1997 (at page 253-254 of the paperbook) which fall within their respective jurisdiction
i. Lands at Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow, Meerut, Mainpuri and Mathura.
ii. Bottling plant at Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow.
iii. S.K.O. storage at Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow.
iv. Kerosene and LPG port storage facility project at Pipavav Port, Gujarat.
v. Vehicles (staff cars & Scooters).
vi. Furniture & Fixtures.
vii. Electrical Equipments.
viii. Electrical installations.
ix. Computers.
x. Stock of lubricating oil.
xi. Stock of L.P. Gas.
xii. Cylinders and regulatOrs.
xiii. Sundry debtOrs.
xiv. Other current assets.
xv. Loans and Advances.
(3) The Managing Director of respondent No. 12 shall file an affidavit this Court within two weeks giving full particulars, of the bank accounts of respondent No. 12 as well as the bank accounts and the properties of all the directors of respondent No. 12 and Pramod Tiwari and Abha Tiwari, promoter and developer of respondent No. 12.
(4) In the meanwhile, the directors of respondent No. 12 shall not alienate or create encumbrance on any of their properties.
4. The report of the Oil Co-ordination Committee makes a reference to 18 FIRs registered against respondent No. 12 at Hazrat Ganj Police Station, U.P., Lucknow and to 11 FIRs registered against M/s. Shree Ram Petroleum. The Director General of Police (Economic Offences Wing) U.P., Lucknow, shall submit a report about the progress of the investigation in those cases within four weeks.
5. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director General of Police (Economic Offences Wing), U.P., Lucknow, and the District Judge, Lucknow/Meerut/Mainpuri and Mathura in U.P., and the District Judge having jurisdiction at Pipavav Port in Gujarat. The said District Judges shall submit their reports regarding action taken within four weeks.
6. List on March 20, 1998.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free