Domestic Violence Protection for Women Right to Residence and Maintenance

V.D. Bhanot Vs. Savita Bhanot
Crimes Against Women and Children
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  Ss. 18 to 20 - Protection-cum-residence order and monetary relief - Conduct of parties even prior to coming into force of 2005 Act can be taken into consideration while passing the order,  (2012) 3 SCC 183-A
  Crimes Against Women and Children
  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
 S. 12 - Application - Maintainability - Retrospective effect of 2005 Act - Application under S. 12 by a woman, who had shared a household in past but was no longer residing with her husband or who was subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to coming into force of the Act, held, maintainable,  (2012) 3 SCC 183-B
   Crimes Against Women and Children
  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
 S. 3 - Domestic violence - Woman after 31 yrs of marriage, having no children, compelled to live alone at advanced age of 63 yrs without any means of sustenance - Held, situation falls within definition of ``domestic violence'',  (2012) 3 SCC 183-C
   Crimes Against Women and Children
  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  Ss. 18 to 20 - Relief - Protection-cum-residence order and monetary relief - Orders modified by Supreme Court -
Complaint by wife alleging domestic violence - Respondent wife after long years of marriage, having no children, left alone at her advanced age without any proper shelter, protection and means of sustenance - Magistrate passed order directing petitioner husband (an Army Officer) to pay Rs 6000 p.m. to respondent and by a subsequent protection-cumresidence order under Ss. 18 and 19 protected her right to reside in her husband's government accommodation – On petitioner's retirement from service, respondent compelled to vacate government accommodation, Magistrate directed petitioner to let respondent live on first floor of permanent matrimonial home and alternatively, to pay Rs 10,000 p.m. to respondent towards rental charges for acquiring an accommodation of her choice - Held, no interference called for - However, order requires to be modified to the extent that petitioner must provide a suitable portion of his residence, properly furnished and with all amenities, to respondent by way of her right to residence and protection - Amount of Rs 10,000 for alternative accommodation should be reduced to Rs 4000 which should be paid in addition to Rs 6000 towards her maintenance,  (2012) 3 SCC 183-D

CASE LAW
2012 (3) SCC 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ALTAMAS KABIR & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.)
V.D. BHANOT    .................Petitioner
VERSUS
SAVITA BHANOT..............Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2010-Decided on 07-02-2012.
Domestic Violence – Accommodation/Maintenance to wife
HEADNOTE: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - In looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof.
ORDER
Altamas Kabir, J.-The Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2010, passed by the Delhi High Court in Cr.M.C.No.3959 of 2009 filed by the Respondent wife, Mrs. Savita Bhanot, questioning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18th September, 2009, dismissing the appeal filed by her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11th May, 2009.
2. There is no dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd August, 1980 and till 4th July, 2005, they lived together. Thereafter, for whatever reason, there were  is  understandings between the parties, as a result whereof, on 29th November, 2006, the Respondent filed a petition before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "PWD Act", seeking various reliefs. By his order dated 8th December, 2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim relief to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order dated 17th February, 2007, the Magistrate passed a protection/residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act, protecting the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura. The said order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, but such challenge was rejected.
3. In the meantime, the Petitioner, who was a member of the Armed Forces, retired from service on 6th December, 2007, and on 26th February, 2008, he filed an application for the Respondent's  eviction from the Government accommodation in Mathura Cantonment. The learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner herein to find an alternative accommodation for the Respondent who had in the meantime received an eviction notice requiring her to vacate the official accommodation occupied by her. By an order dated 11th May, 2009, the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1st Floor of House No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi, which she claimed to be her permanent matrimonial home. The learned Magistrate directed that if this was not possible, a reasonable accommodation in the vicinity of Nirman Vihar was to be made available to the Respondent wife. She further directed that if the second option was also not possible, the Petitioner would be required to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent as rental charges, so that she could find a house of her choice.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the Respondent preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed on 18th September, 2009, by the learned additional Sessions Judge, who was of the view that since the Respondent had left the matrimonial home on 4th July, 2005, and the Act came into force on 26th October, 2006, the claim of a woman living in domestic relationship or living together prior to 26th October, 2006, was not maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the viewthat since the cause of action arose prior to coming into force of the PWD Act, the Court could not adjudicate upon the merits of the Respondent's case.
5. Before the Delhi High Court, the only question which came up for determination was whether the petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, was maintainable by a woman, who was no longer residing with her husband or who was allegedly subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act on 26th October, 2006. After considering the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution, vis-`-vis, the provisions of Sections 31 and 33 of the PWD Act, 2005, and after examining the statement of objects and reasons for the enactment of the PWD Act, 2005, the learned Judge held that it was with the view of protecting the rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution that the Parliament enacted the PWD Act, 2005, in order to provide for some effective protection of rights guaranteed under the Constitution to women, who are victims of any kind of violence occurring within the family and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, and to provide an
efficient and expeditious civil remedy to them. The learned Judge accordingly held that a petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence had been committed prior to the coming into force of the said Act, notwithstanding the fact that in the past she had lived together with her husband in a shared household, but was no more living with him, at the time when the Act came into force. The learned Judge, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and directed him to consider the appeal filed by the Respondent wife on merits.
6. As indicated hereinbefore, the Special Leave Petition is directed against the said order dated 22nd March, 2010, passed by the Delhi High Court and the findings contained therein.
7. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, on 15th September, 2011, the Petitioner  appearing in-person submitted that the disputes between him and the Respondent had been resolved and the parties had decided to file an application for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. The matter was, thereafter, referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and during the mediation, a mutual settlement signed by both the parties was prepared so that the same could be filed in the Court for appropriate orders to be passed thereupon. However, despite the said settlement, which was mutually arrived at by the parties, on 17th January, 2011, when the matter was listed for orders to be passed on the settlement arrived at between the parties, an application filed by the Petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court praying that the settlement arrived at between the parties be annulled. Thereafter, the matter was listed in-camera in Chambers and we had occasion to interact with the parties in order to ascertain the reason for change of heart. We found that while the wife was wanting to rejoin her husband's company, the husband was reluctant to accept the same. For reasons best known to the Petitioner, he insisted that the mutual settlement be annulled as he was not prepared to take back the Respondent to live with him.
8. The attitude displayed by the Petitioner has once again thrown open the decision of the High Court for consideration. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.
9. On facts it may be noticed that the couple has no children. Incidentally, the Respondent wife is at present residing with her old parents, after she had to vacate the matrimonial home, which she had shared with the Petitioner at Mathura, being his official residence, while in service. After more than 31 years of marriage, the Respondent wife having no children, is faced with the prospect of living alone at the advanced age of 63 years, without any proper shelter or protection and without any means of sustenance except for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which the Petitioner was directed by the Magistrate by order dated 8th December, 2006, to give to the Respondent each month. By a subsequent order dated 17th February, 2007, the Magistrate also passed a protection cum- residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWD Act, protecting the rights of the Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura. Thereafter, on the Petitioner's retirement from service, the Respondent was compelled to vacate the accommodation in Mathura and a direction was given by the Magistrate to the Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1st Floor of House No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi, and if that was not possible, to provide a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent towards rental charges for acquiring an accommodation of her choice.
10. In our view, the situation comes squarely within the ambit of Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005, which defines "domestic violence" in wide terms, and, accordingly, no interference is called for with the impugned order of the High Court. However, considering the fact that the couple is childless and the Respondent has herself expressed apprehension of her safety if she were to live alone in a rented accommodation, we are of the view that keeping in mind the object of the Act to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family, the order of the High Court requires to be modified. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the High Court and direct that the Respondent be provided with a right of residence where the Petitioner is residing, by way of relief under Section 19 of the PWD Act, and we also pass protection orders under Section 18 thereof. As far as any monetary relief is concerned, the same has already been provided by the learned Magistrate and in terms of the said order, the Respondent is receiving a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards her expenses.
11. Accordingly, in terms of Section 19 of the PWD Act, 2005, we direct the Petitioner to provide a suitable portion of his residence to the Respondent for her residence, together with all necessary amenities to make such residential premises properly habitable for the Respondent, within 29th February, 2012. The said portion of the premises will be properly furnished according to the choice of the Respondent to enable her to live in dignity in the shared household. Consequently, the sum of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the Respondent for obtaining alternative accommodation in the event the Petitioner was reluctant to live in the same house with the Respondent, shall stand reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.4,000/-, which will be paid to the Respondent in addition to the sum of Rs.6,000/- directed to be paid to her towards her maintenance. In other words, in addition to providing the residential accommodation to the Respondent, the Petitioner shall also pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent towards her maintenance and day-to-day expenses.
12. In the event, the aforesaid arrangement does not work, the parties will be at liberty to apply to this Court for further directions and orders. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

ORDERS of City Limouzines and City Realcom Limited

CASE No.01

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 326 OF 2010.

M/s. Sureshot Advertising.    …. ..Petitioner.
vs.
City Realcom Limited. …. ..Respondent.
Mr. Milind K. Kadam, i/b. Ashoka Law Firm, for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE :9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
1. The above Company Petition was admitted by an order passed by this Court dated 28th October 2010. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is recorded that “It is clear that the Defendant has abandoned its registered office and therefore the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petition is returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. The claim of the Petitioner has remained uncontroverted by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs. 24,70,738/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.”

2. The notice sought to be served under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is also returned unclaimed. None appear for the Company even at this stage though the Company Petition has been advertised as can be seen from the Affidavit of Publication dated 10th January 2011. The Company Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
                                                                                                       [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]




CASE No.02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.326 OF 2010
M/s. Sureshot Advertising                 ... Petitioner
V/s.
City Realcom Ltd.                                                                                                  .. Respondents.
Ms. Sweta Jain i/b. M/s. Ashoka Law Firms, for Petitioner.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.
DATE :28th October, 2010
P.C.:-
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the Respondent-Company City Realcom Ltd., (the company).
2 The Petitioner is a proprietary concern of Shri Nilesh Vora who is engaged in the business of Advertising. In the year 2009, the Company approached the Petitioner for publication of its advertisements in various news papers. The Petitioner as per the requirements of the Company, got their advertisements published in various news papers and raised various bills for the same which were accepted and acknowledged by the Company without any demand.
3 According to the Petitioner, despite repeated request the Company failed to clear the outstanding amounts. The Petitioner therefore served a statutory notice dated 21st July, 2010 at the registered address of the Company and demanded their dues aggregating to Rs.24,70,738/- together with interest thereon from the Company. The said notice was returned to the Petitioner with the remark Unclaimed. The Petitioner thereafter, filed the present Company Petition seeking winding up of the Company. The Petitioner has attempted to serve a copy of the Petition at the registered address of the Company which was also returned with the postal endorsement , Unclaimed. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that as of date an amount of Rs.24,70,738/- is due and payable to the Petitioner by the Company as per particulars of claim (Exh. B  to the petition) with interest at the rate of 24%. It is submitted that the Company is unable to pay its dues and deserves to be wound up.
4 From the above facts, it is clear that the company has abandoned its registered office and therefore the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petition is returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement Unclaimed. The claim of the petitioner has remained uncontroversial by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs.24,70,738/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.
5 The Petition shall be advertised by the Petitioner in two local newspapers, namely  Free Press Journal(in English), Maharashtra Times (in Marathi) and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. The Petitioner shall within a period of one week from today, deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards the publication charges, with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which the Company Petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution.
6  S.O. to 18th November, 2010.
                                                                                                                (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.)
CASE No.03

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION  NO. 234 OF 2010.

Prasad Mhatre.                                                                                                               ..Petitioner.
v/s.
City Limouzines (India) Limited                                                                                   ..Respondent.
 Mr. Anoshak S. Daver, a/w. Mr. Sayeed Mulani, i/b. Mulani & Co., for ---Petitioner.
None for Respondent. ...
      CORAM :  S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
      DATE      : 1ST OCTOBER 2010.
P.C.
1.  By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the   Respondent   Company   City limouzines   (India)   Limited   (the  Company).
2. The  Petitioner  entered  into  an  Agreement  dated  18th January   2006   with   the   Company   under   which   the   Petitioner deposited Rs.1,09,831/­ with the Company under the scheme known as  Car Finances for Omni (the said Agreement).
3.As  per  the    said   Agreement, the Company agreed topay     compensation/benefit     to   the     Petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,000/­per month  for  sixty  months  commencing  from   February2006 and   also   issued    to  the  Petitioner  700 preference   sharesworth Rs. 100/­ each   aggregating to Rs.70,000/­.   As per the said Agreement,   the   Company   paid    the   monthly    compensation of                                                    
of    Rs.4000/­  to the Petitioner  from February 2006 to July 2009.However, since August 2009, the Company failed and neglected topay   to   the   Petitioner   the   monthly   compensation   of   Rs.4,000/­ aggregating to Rs.24,000/­.
4. It is submitted that the Company has duped thousandsof investors like the Petitioner and is indebted to the said investors tothe tune of several hundred crores of rupees.  It is submitted that theCompany had moved this Court under sections 391 and 393 of theCompanies Act, 1956 to obtain its permission to hold meetings ofequity   shareholders   and   preference   shareholders   and   un­securedcreditors of the Company.  However, the said meeting has not beenheld till date.  The Directors of the said Company were arrested bythe economic offences and various economic offences were registeredagainst them.
5.It is submitted that since there was no sign of paymenttowards the monthly compensation by the Company, the Petitionerby its Advocate's letter dated 22nd February 2010 recorded some ofthe   aforesaid   facts   and   called   upon   the   Company   to   pay   to   thePetitioner an amount of Rs.26,880/­ together with interest at the rateof  24% per annum within 21 days from the receipt  of  the notice.However, the Company failed and neglected to pay the said amountand has also not responded to the said notice.   Though the statutorynotice was served at the registered address of the Company, the samehas   been   returned   with   the   endorsement   'left'.    Under   thecircumstances, the Petitioner filed the above Company Petition andsought to serve the same on the Company at its registered address.However, the  packet    containing  a  copy of  the  Petition  has  beenreturned by the postal authorities with the endorsement 'left'.   ThePetitioner  has  tendered the print  outs  of  the search taken  on thewebsite of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), which  shows that tilldate, the registeredaddress of the Company on the records of ROC isthe same, i.e. where the Petitioner has sought to serve the statutorynotice as well as the Company Petition.
6.Under   the   circumstances,   it   is   submitted   that   theRespondent Company is unable to carry on its business and is unableto   pay   its   debts   and  hence  is   liable   to  be  wound   up   under   thedirections   of   this   Court.     It   is   submitted   that   the   Petitioner   isapprehensive that the Company may sell off and fritter away with itsassets.  It is submitted that therefore, it is in the interest of justice,equity and good conscience and also in the interest of the creditors ofthe  Company  that  pending  the  hearing  and  final disposal of  thePetition, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, or some otherfit and proper person be appointed as Provisional Liquidator of theCompany with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956.
 7.In my view, the Petitioner has clearly established that anamount of Rs.28,851/­ is due and payable to him by the Company onthe date of filing of the Petition along with interest thereon at therate of 24% as agreed by the Company under the Agreement dated18th January 2006.  As submitted by the Petitioner, several offenceshave   been   registered   against   the   Directors   of   the   Company   forvarious economic offences committed by them.   The Company hasabandoned   its   registered   office   and   has   also   not   informed   theRegistrar of  Companies where the registered office is now shifted.The statutory notice and the Petition are, therefore, deemed to havebeen served on the Company. The allegations made in the statutorynotice and the petition have, therefore, remained uncontroverted.Iam, therefore,  satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts,has stopped its business and  abandoned its registered office and islikely to sell off and siphon of its assets.
8.  Under the circumstances, I pass the following order :­
(i) The above Company Petition stands admitted and ismade returnable on 28th October 2010.
(ii) The Petition shall be advertised by the Petitioner intwo   local   newspapers,   namely   “Free   Press   Journal”   (in   English),“Maharashtra   Times”     (in   Marathi)   and   in   the   MaharashtraGovernment  Gazette. The Petitioner  shall   within a  period of  one week   from     today, deposit   an   amount   of   Rs.10,000/­   with   theProthonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards the publicationcharges, with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which theCompany Petition shall stand dismissed for non­prosecution.
(iii)   Pending   the   hearing   and   final   disposal   of   thePetition, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay is appointed asProvisional   Liquidator   of   the   Company   who   shall   forthwith   take charge inter­alia of the properties and records of the Company.
(iv)  Parties  to  act  upon an authenticated copy of  this order.
                                                                                                                     [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
CASE No 4.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.234 OF 2010

Prasad Mhatre                                                                                            ....Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (India) Ltd.                                                                         ....Respondent
Mr.A.S. Daver i/b Mulani & Co.  for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
       CORAM :   S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE     :   3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C.  :-
1.      This  is  a  petition for winding up  of  the  company  on  the ground that the company is unable  to  pay  its  debts.    By an order dated 1.10.2010, the company petition is admitted and ordered to be advertised.
2. The undertaking to file an affidavit proving publication within two weeks from today is accepted.
3. By the said order dated 1.10.2010, the learned Judge set out the facts of the case in detail. The company  was absent when the petition was admitted. The company is absent even today. There is no affidavit in reply. There is nothing that persuades me to take a different view of the matter today. Mr.Daver states that Rule 28 has been complied with.
4. In the circumstances and for the reasons set out in the order dated 1.10.2010, the company petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs fixed at Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered in the winding up proceedings.

CASE NO.05

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.235 OF 2010
Avinash P. Jagtap .                                                     ...Petitioner
V/s.
City Realcom Ltd.                                                       ...Respondent
Mr.Anushok Daver i/b Mulani & Co. for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
       CORAM :   S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE     :   3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C.  :-
1. This  is  a  petition for winding up  of  the  company  on  the ground that the company is unable  to  pay  its  debts.
2. The parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 24.4.2008 under which the respondent allotted the petitioner a redeemable preference shares of Rs.1,07,000/- and to secure the repayment thereof allotted an area of 20 sq.ft. in the proposed building.
3. The project has not come up. The entire amount has not been paid. There is balance outstanding of about Rs.57,000/-.
4. By an order dated 28.10.2010 in Company Petition No.325 of 2010 against the same respondent has been admitted.
5. In the circumstances, the company petition is admitted. The advertisement is dispensed with.


CASE NO.6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 235 OF 2010.

Avinash Parshuram Jagtap.                                                                 ..Petitioner.
vs.
City Realcom Limited                                                                            ..Respondent.
 Mr. A. Davar, i/b. Mulani & Co., for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM :­ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE     :­ 9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
Since the Company is already wound up by an order of thisCourt in Company Petition No. 326 of 2010, the Petitioner shall filetheir   claim   before   the   Official   Liquidator   and   get   the   same adjudicated. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.
                                                                                                             [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]


CASE NO. 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.325 OF 2010

M/s. Sureshot Advertising                                                                           ..  Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (I) Ltd.,                                                                      ..  Respondents.
Ms. Sweta Jain i/b. M/s. Ashoka Law Firms, for Petitioner.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.
   
DATE  :28th October, 2010
P.C.:-
1.By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the Respondent-Company City Limouzines (I) Ltd., (the company).
2. The Petitioner is a proprietary concern of Shri Nilesh Vora who is engaged in the business of Advertising. In the year 2009, the Company approached the Petitioner for publication of its advertisements in various news papers. The Petitioner as per the requirements of the Company, got their advertisements published in various news papers and raised various bills for the same which were accepted and acknowledged by the Company without any demand.
3.  According to  the Petitioner, despite repeated requests, the Company failed to clear the outstanding amounts. The Petitioner therefore served a statutory notice dated 21st July, 2010 at the registered address of the Company and demanded their dues aggregating to Rs.1,87,985 together with interest thereon from the Company. The said notice was returned to the Petitioner with the remark Unclaimed. The Petitioner thereafter, filed the present Company Petition seeking winding up of the Company. The Petitioner has attempted to serve a copy of the Petition at the registered address of the Company which was also returned with the postal endorsement  Unclaimed. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that as of date an amount of Rs.1,87,985/- is due and and payable to the Petitioner by the Company as per particulars of claim (Exh. Bto the petition) with interest at the rate of 24%. It is submitted that the Company is unable to pay its dues and deserves to be wound up.
4.From the above facts, it is clear that the company has abandoned its registered office and therefore, the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petitionis returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement  Unclaimed. The claim of the petitioner has remained uncontroverted by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs.1,87,985/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.3 28-325-10.
5. In view of the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed in Company Petition No.234 of 2010, advertisement of the admission of the present Company Petition is dispensed with.
6.  S.O. to 18th November, 2010.
                                                                                                                      (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.)


CASE No. 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.325 OF 2010
M/s.Sureshot Advertising                                                                          ....Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (I) Ltd.                                                                            ....Respondent
Ms.Shweta Jain i/b Ashoka law Firm for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
       CORAM :   S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE     :   3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C.  :-
1.      This  is  a  petition for winding up  of  the  company  on  the ground that the company is unable  to  pay  its  debts.
2. According to the petitioner, an mount of about Rs.1,88,000/- is due and payable by the respondent to it for the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner carried out certain advertising jobs on behalf of the respondent and invoices were raised for the same on 30.6.2009. The respondent did not deny the bill or raise any objections in respect thereof. There was no reply to the statutory notice.
3. By an order dated 28.10.2010 this Company Petition against the same respondent has been admitted.
4. In the circumstances, the company petition is admitted. The advertisement is dispensed with.


CASE No. 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 325 OF 2010.
M/s. Sureshot Advertising.                                                                                   ..Petitioner.
vs.
City limouzines (I) Limited.                                                                                    ..Respondent.
Mr. Milind K. Kadam, i/b. Ashoka Law Firm, for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM :­ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE     :­ 9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
Since the Company is already wound up by an order of this Court in Company Petition No. 234 of 2010, the Petitioner shall file their   claim   before   the   Official   Liquidator   and   get   the   same adjudicated.  The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.
                                                                                                      [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]


Thanks
Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, M.Phil (Law), Ph.D
Advocate
No. 462. Addl Law Chambers
High Court of Madras
Chennai-600 104
MB: 9884102961
             
             

CITY REALCOM Ltd WINDING UP ORDER

Dear Investors of City Realcom Ltd
I am happy to inform you all that Order for winding up of City Realcom Ltd has been passed by Hon,ble High Court of Mumbai. on 09/03/2012, You can submit your claims to official liquidator.
ORDER COPY:
                                                             
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION                  
COMPANY PETITION NO. 326 OF 2010.
M/s. Sureshot Advertising. ..Petitioner.
          vs.
City Realcom Limited. ..Respondent.
Mr. Milind K. Kadam, i/b. Ashoka Law Firm, for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM :­ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE     :­ 9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
The above Company Petition was admitted by an order passed by this Court dated 28th   October 2010.  In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is recorded that “It is clear that the Defendant has abandoned its registered office and therefore the statutory notice as  well as the copy   of   the   Petition   is   returned   to   the   Petitioner   with   the   postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’.   The claim of the Petitioner   has remained
uncontroverted by the Company.   It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs. 24,70,738/­ is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner.  The Company Petition is therefore admitted.”

2. The   notice   sought   to   be   served   under   Rule   28   of   the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is also returned unclaimed.   None appear  for  the  Company even  at  this  stage though  the  Company Petition has  been advertised as  can be seen from the Affidavit  of Publication   dated   10 th   January   2011.     The   Company   Petition   is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

                                                                                               [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]


ORDER in CP.235 of 2010                                                                                                            

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

COMPANY PETITION NO. 235 OF 2010.
Avinash Parshuram Jagtap. ..Petitioner.
                         vs.
City Realcom Limited. ..Respondent.
Mr. A. Davar, i/b. Mulani & Co., for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM :S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE :9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
Since the Company is already wound up by an order of this Court in Company Petition No. 326 of 2010, the Petitioner shall file their claim before the Official Liquidator and get the same adjudicated. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.
                                                                                      [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]



So Now all City realcom investors can file their claims before official liquidator.
Address of Official Liquidator



Official Liquidator
(Attached to High Court of Bombay)
Bank of India Building, 5th Floor, 
Mahatma Gandhi Road
Mumbai-400 023

...............................................................................................................................

Thanks & Regards
Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, M.Phil (Law), Ph.D
Advocate
No. 462, Addl Law Chambers
High Court of Madras
Chennai-600 104
MB: 9884102961
EMail: zulfiqar1971@gmail.com

Arrangement Meeting Between Investors and Directors

City Limo scam: D-day for investors ends in chaos

15 Oct 2009

Mumbai: It was D-day for City Realcom investors, who came from all over the country to the Wilson High School compound near V P Road police station on Wednesday morning. Around 10,000 investors turned up, spilling over into adjoining lanes as well as nearby buildings, causing a massive traffic jam for hours in south Mumbai.

The investors, who had been looking forward to this meeting for over a month, were disappointed. “After three hours of discussion, we’re more confused than before,” an investor said.

The meeting was held following directions of the Bombay high court on an application by the company, which is part of the same group as City Limouzines, to restructure its debts. City Realcom had promised investors unbelievable returns, but cheques began bouncing in August.

At the meeting, the company’s advocate Nirmala Bhosle tried to calm investors and presented a proposal to return their principal along with 7% interest—a fraction of the 48% originally promised. Investors would receive this amount via 12 post-dated cheques three months from now, according to the proposal. Some investors were amenable to this but others, like Zulfiqar Khan from Chennai, insisted that payments already received as interest not be adjusted against the principal. Many investors supported him but the company did not agree.

Another investor suggested the company immediately pay the principal without interest, but the firm vetoed the idea. Some investors demanded a guarantee that the post-dated cheques wouldn’t bounce, to which the firm agreed. The company has to submit a report on the meeting’s outcome to the high court.

Bhosle blamed the Economic Offences Wing of the city police and Enforcement Directorate for the crisis. The two agencies said the company was trying to pass the buck for its own mistakes. Investors who had been asked to assemble at Wilson Gymkhana, Chowpatty turned up only to be redirected to Wilson School four kilometres away. The venue could not accommodate the attendees.

A leading advocate said, “There should have been a register of investors who attended. Or they should send their representative with a signed proxy form. The minutes of the meeting should be properly recorded,” he said.

Senior inspector of V P Road police station V Patil cancelled the two other meetings planned by the company. saying they were illegal. “This is no way to hold a meeting for an important discussion. The company still hasn’t cleared our doubts,” said investor Sneha Kokate angrily.

Meeting Cancelled

The police have denied the City Group permission to hold a meeting with City Limouzines’ creditors on Thursday, after the poorly planned meeting of sister firm City Realcom’s investors on Wednesday.

As per high court directives, City Realcom was to hold the meeting at Wilson High school. Senior inspector V Patil of V P Road police station told TOI, “They simply dropped a letter in our drop box and expected us to be prepared for 10,000 people.” He added, “This meeting was against the law. We will not allow such a meeting again.” The police said City Realcom waited until the last moment to inform them, causing a major traffic snarl in South Mumbai. Company officials said they would approach the court and seek permission to hold the meeting on another date.

Confusion Over Venue

A month ago, on the directions of the Bombay high court, the City Group decided to hold a meeting at Garware Club in the first week of October. It then shifted the date to October 14 for investors of City Realcom and October 15 for those of City Limouzines. As per the Bombay high court’s directions, the promoters advertised that the City Realcom meeting would be held at Wilson High School. Three days ago the firm’s representatives said it would be at Wilson Gymkhana, Chowpatty. On Wednesday morning when investors gathered at the Gymkhana, they were told the meeting would take place at the school after all. “We’re running from pillar to post. Our plight gets worse day by day,” said M Mukherjee, an investor who had come all the way from Kolkata.

City Limouzine spills onto street, five executives arrested

The City Limouzine executives seem to have a knack for getting into trouble. A meeting of its investors, organised by the company on Wednesday, led to a three-hour traffic chaos on VP Road as 10,000 investors gathered at the Wilson School premises.

The police registered a case against five company executives for not taking the required permissions to hold such a meeting. Starting around 11am, the meeting led to traffic jams on and around VP Road. The local police had to call in state reserve police force and home guards to control the crowd and the traffic. The cops also made announcements on megaphones, saying that the meeting was cancelled.

"No police permission was given for this meeting," said Sanjay Mohite, deputy commissioner of police, Zone II. "The organisers had applied for permission to conduct a meeting at Wilson School, but their application was rejected. Yet they went ahead with the meeting. We were shocked to see such a huge crowd," Mohite said.

The Wilson School ground, where the meeting was held, was so packed with investors that some had to find space atop trees, and the boundary walls to listen to the City Limouzine officials. The investors came from all over the country. The high court had directed the company to organise a meeting of its investors after it triggered a controversy by allegedly cheating several thousand investors.

"As per the HC directives, a meeting was organised by the company officials. But they did not follow proper procedures. A representative of the company should have discussed with the police about the meeting and about the expected crowd. A case was registered against five persons, including company lawyer Virendra Maurya, finance manager and other company representatives. They have been placed under arrest," senior inspector Vilas Patil of VP Road police station said. Another meeting, scheduled for 3 pm on Wednesday, was cancelled.

"Normally, it takes not more than three minutes to reach Sikka Nagar from CP Tank. But today, it took more than 20 minutes to travel the distance. I had to reach Harkishan Hospital, but got stuck in the jam. I have never seen such a huge crowd on this road," said Rajiv Joshi, a garment dealer.

SFIO to investigate City Fraud scam

FRAUD OFFICE TO PROBE CITY GROUP SCAM

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Fraud-office-to-probe-City-Group-scam/599660/

New Delhi: The ministry of corporate affairs will refer the investigations into the alleged Rs 1,000-crore fraud by the Mumbai-based City Group of Companies to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The City Group of Companies, which deals in vehicle leasing and fleet management and certain other hospitality services under companies like City Limouzines, City Realcom, City Communications, is charged with duping 25,000 investors who had invested in its various schemes promising high returns. City Limouzines was the official sponsor of India’s women’s hockey team from 2006 to 2009.

The MCA has already asked the registrar of companies in Mumbai to examine the matter. The economic offences wing of the Mumbai crime branch also formed a special investigative team in December last year to look into the case.

According to an MCA official, the group had mobilised deposits by promising impressive returns. But the cheques issued by it to investors started bouncing since August 2009. There were also allegations that the group had diverted sizeable chunks of the amount raised in Bollywood films.

According to MCA officials, group companies like City Limouzines attracted investors by asking for a minimum investment of Rs 139,000 with a promise that the investor would get a monthly return of Rs 7,775 over a period of five years.

An email sent to the company’s spokesperson and calls made to the company went unanswered.

RBI Red signals to MLM companies

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/RBI-flashes-red-signal-at-MLM-companies/518020/

RBI FLASHES RED SIGNAL AT MLM COMPANIES

Sep 17, 2009

The operations of shady multi-level marketing (MLM) companies — which operate what are popularly known as pyramid or ponzi schemes — have come under the regulatory scanner with shady MLM companies mushrooming across the country and duping investors. Many firms posing as MLM agencies for consumer goods and services have been actually mobilising large amounts of deposits from the public with promises of ridiculous returns of 120 per cent and repayment of prinicipal within a year.

In a circular, the Reserve Bank of India has alerted banks that in cases where accounts have already been opened in the names of the marketing agencies, retail traders and investment firms, the banks should undertake quick reviews. “Wherever large number of cheque books has been issued to such firms, the relative decision may be reviewed,” it said.

With many MLM companies recently using the banking technology to dupe investors, the RBI said, “banks should be careful in opening accounts of the marketing/trading agencies etc. Especially, strict compliance with KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti-money laundering) guidelines issued by the RBI should be ensured in the matter.”

The banking regulator also named seven MLM companies (Fine India Sales Pvt Ltd, Lakshya Levels Marketing, Eve Industries, Trident Advertising & Trade Links Pvt. Ltd, Super Life Link Distributors, Lue Brain Education Society and Manya Mantra Marketing). “These firms and their agents had reportedly promised very high returns on deposits and lured common people to part with funds in the name of certain investment/deposit schemes,” the RBI said.

ASKS BANKS TO TIGHTEN FRAUD RISK MANAGEMENT

MUMBAI: The Reserve Bank of India has asked banks to tighten the internal policy for fraud risk management and fraud investigation function as the incidence of frauds in Indian banks has been showing an increasing trend, especially in housing and mortgage loans, credit card dues and internet banking. “It is a matter of concern that instances of frauds in the traditional areas of banking such as cash credit, export finance, guarantees, letters of credit etc remain unabated,” the RBI said a year after the surfacing of the global financial crisis. 

30th Mar 2010.

RBI OFFICERS FELL FOR CITY LIMO’S EMPTY PROMISES

Mumbai: The Reserve Bank of India alerts public about nonviable deposit schemes that lure investors with hugely attractive rates of interest. Now, some officials of the RBI itself have fallen prey to the investment scheme floated by City Limouzine and its sister concern City Realcom that offered an astonishingly high 48% interest rate.

According to sources in the city police’s economic offences wing (EOW), at least 15 lowerlevel officials in the RBI unit that monitors the functioning of non-banking financial companies (NBFC) have lost their money in the scheme. One of these complainants was related to a senior official of the apex bank.

EOW sources said that among those who lost money, approximately 6,000 are policemen, 200 from the incometax department and 300 from the Mantralaya. “There are also several from the defence services who have lost their hardearned money. Most invested as some of the companies’ branch offices across the country were headed by former defence personnel,” an official said.

The police arrested {une’s regional director, retired captain Prakash Nambiar. The Andheri office was headed by Shehla Khan, wife of retired wing commander Humayun Khan. In Jaipur, the regional director was retired air force personnel Mohan Lal Verma. In Delhi, the office was headed by former air vice marshal Naiyyer Razzaki.

Interestingly, the RBI itself has expressed helplessness in curbing the activites of fly-bynight operators that lure public with quick-rich schemes, saying they do not fall under the definition of an NBFC. The money collected by these companies cannot be termed as deposits to be treated as an NBFC, says the RBI. EOW sources said the number of complaints has crossed 30,000. “We continue to receive complaints every day.

We believe at least 500 NRIs from the US, Canada, UAE, Australia, Germany and Singapore lost their money,” a source said. Investors from rural areas send complaints by courier.

Meanwhile, a local court on Monday remanded S M Masood, chairman of the companies, and his second wife Seema Razzaki to police custody till March 31 in connection with an FIR registered at Bangur Nagar police station.

Letter send to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and others on City Limouzines Fraud

Respected Madam,

I write to you on behalf of a strong community of around 500,000 citizens of India. I draw your attention to our plight and agony since August 2009. We are unfortunate victims of mega financial fraud executed by City Group Ltd. and its group concerns ( www . cit y lim ou z i n e s . c o m ).

Background:

City Group Ltd. is an ISO 9001-2000 (claimed to be established in 1995) certified private company based in Mumbai with branches in major Indian cities (New Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Pune and Jaipur) and the USA. This company is headed by Mr Syed Masood and accepts investments in cheque and cash from general public. The company was in this business under 14 different subsidiary companies. As per the agreement signed between each of the subsidiary company and individual investors, the investor is guaranteed a monthly return for a fixed period. On

completion of the tenure, the investor is refunded either a partial amount from the investment he / she made or a vehicle as written in the agreement. The company issued receipts for the investment made. T o make the deal look authentic, the company also issued Preference Share Certificates towards a partial amount of the investment. The company has been in this business since 1996. The trouble started in August 2009 when cheques started bouncing. The company began giving false reasons like internal audit to prolong the matter. To our shock the company abruptly shut down all its offices and branches in India without any communication. Instead of coming open in the public and explaining the correct situation, the employees and directors of this company kept postponing the dates of re-opening the branches.

Impact:

It was only the high amount of returns advertised and promised by the different schemes of this group that led investors to believe its claims and invest in its schemes. There are many senior government officials, reputed political leaders, retired armed personnel who fell prey to the advertisements and invested in the schemes promoted by the group. Our plight is different from these investors. We are sma l l investors and are adversely affected to a large extent because our

hard-earned money is at stake. There are many investors who have no other option but to end their life because of this scam. Please note that there are retired people, ladies, widows etc. who invested their entire savings accumulated over their life and now have nowhere to go.

As a matter of fact, the group’s New Delhi office inaugurated by the Delhi Transport Minister Mr. Haroon Yusuf. (The Hindu dated 25.11.05). It also displays a “Letter of Recommendation” written by a Congress cabinet minister viz. Mr Subodh Kant Sahay favouring the group’s tainted chairman Mr. Masood. In addition, the Company was appointed as sponsors to the Indian Women Hockey Federation till 2010 and pledged to give a stipend of Rs. 1 crore & Rs.5 lakhs towards development of the game. This was announced by Mr. Masood in a glittering function held at hotel Shangri-La, New Delhi in 2006 (Source: Times Now dated 29.6.06) 

Current Situation & Way Forward:

The estimated corpus of our investments today stands at Rs.15,000 crores with this group under various schemes advertised in the print media on a continuous basis. Majority of us have taken personal loans or sold off assets in order to invest in this company. All the investors of this company are going through a very painful time since this unfortunate event in August 2009. The chairman of this group Mr. Masood has refrained from communicating with the investors and all efforts undertaken towards this from our side have not been fruitful. As on date different agencies like ED and EOW are investigating the matters. Mr. Masood and his wife are being represented by Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Congress spokesperson, who is also a MP representing Rajasthan in the Rajya Sabha. Mr. Masood is presently in police custody. We are unaware how long the investigations will continue. We are dependent on the public prosecutors and the various government agencies to punish the guilty and deliver justice. We earnestly request you to kindly look into this matter at

the earliest and bail us out from this situation. We also request you to direct the concerned agencies to speed up the probe and resolve this scam as a priority. We look forward to you with trust as our only hope.

Regards & Thanks

All India City Limouzines Investors

City Limouzines Updates, Main conspirators in this fraud

Main Conspirator in this City Limouzines Fraud as per my personal research:

1. Manoj Vighe

2. Raviraj Desi

3. Kaiser Baig

4. Santosh Dayalkar

5. Naiyyer Razzaki

6. Amber Razzaki

7. Shehla Khan

8. Farhan Ahmed Khan

9. Vikas Patil

10. Anil D'Mello

11. Chirag Doshi

12. Chand Masood

13. Jabeen Masood

14. Amin Askari

15. Rajeev Loomba

16. Sneha Govekar

17. Rehan Alavi

18. Naeem Munawar Sayed

19. Ranjit Shetty

20. Aziz Khan

21ST MAY 2010

‘PRODUCER BROS DUPED INVESTORS’

Mumbai: The promoters of fly-by-night companies that vanish with public money love to hobnob with the entertainment industry. After S M Masood, chairman of the tainted investment company City Limouzines, dabbled in Bollywood producing some C-grade movies, two brothers known in the television industry have come under the scanner for duping investors.

Sandeep Shukla owner of Leo 1 Music, who funded the second season of realty show Dance India Dance, and his brother Manoj Shukla are currently being investigated for duping public by promising huge returns on their investments. “They are directors of Aurum Realty Ltd and are believed to have masterminded the fraud. We are trying to locate them,’’ a police officer said. Meanwhile the police have arrested two of the company’s directors—Jignesh Rathod and Shafiq Shaikh.

A Google search on Sandeep Shukla provided a detailed account of his birthday celebration last July at a five star hotel. Most of the attendees included lesser known television actors with the only exception of film actor Rajpal Yadav. It further says that his parents gifted him an Audi car. Sandeep has also produced a Marathi movie Anandi Ki Rohi.

The initial estimates by the police show that Aurum has duped 3,000 investors in Mumbai to the tune of Rs 40 crore. The company also had offices in Pune, Nashik and Aurangabad. In March, Amrish Patankar, a customs house clearing agent lodged a complaint with the economic offences wing (EOW). The company had floated two schemes at Kasara and Karjat and promised to construct dream houses there. The company promised the public very high returns on the amount they invested till the project came up. The firm even assured that the investors will be the tentative owners of the one-acre land at Karjat, a police officer said. “The company never owned any land,’’ a police officer said.

Investigators said the company floated the scheme in January 2009 and placed huge advertisements in newspapers. The advertisements read: ‘Change your life. Be Rich. Get wealthy by investing in land’. The company had two schemes: Nature Valley and Astra Hills. The investors were promised that their money will be doubled in a year. The company disbursed returns till March, after which it stopped.

According to the scheme, if a person invested Rs 51,000, he would get a monthly return of Rs 8,160 for one year. In its brochure, Aurum stated that the company was ISO certified.

One more held in City Limo scam

In the City Limouzines case, the EOW on Saturday arrested Kaiser Beg, tax consultant to the company. This is the first arrest of a non-employee in the case. Six persons including S M Masood and his wife Seema are presently in custody. The police believe that Beg was the brain behind the schemes floated by the company. When Masood was in hiding, Beg had transferred money into his accounts. 

TRUST UNDER SCANNER IN CITY LIMO CASE

 Mumbai: The economic offences wing (EOW) of the city police investigating the City Limouzines cheating case is examining whether a trust, who played the role of the company’s agent, can be booked for being party to the crime.

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Pratishthan, acted on behalf of City Limouzines and leased out vehicles purchased in the name of investors, has come under the scanner. These vehicles were part of

the scheme offered by City Limouzines while collecting money from the public. As part of the scheme, City Limouzines by way of loans and money collected from investors purchased vehicles and gave them on hire for a period of five years.

On completion of the fiveyear period, the vehicles were to be returned to the investors. The investors were also offered monthly returns which the company claimed came from leasing out the vehicles.

A police officer said that the trust, which also runs a cooperative credit society, and City Limouzines operated from the same address at Kemps Corner. “City Limouzines’ chairman S M Masood is the vice chairman of the credit society,’’ the officer said. There are over 1,200 vehicles which have been leased out through the Pratishthan. “There was a proper agreeement entered into by the Pratishthan and the vehicle users. The pratishtan collected as high as Rs 5 lakh refundable deposits for a period ranging between three to five years. Besides this, they also collected money as fixed deposit with the credit society and offered around 9% interest,’’ a source said. According to the police, this clearly establishes a business link where the Pratishthan was aware of the activities of City Limouzines.

The credit society, according to the website, was established in 2003 and names several people as its trustees. The principal objective is “to provide medium term and long term project finances to Indian businesses while uplifting the lives of the underprivileged segment of the Indian society...’’ The credit society also floated schemes in collaboration with City Limouzines.

Meanwhile, after the company went into trouble there is a dispute as to whom the vehicles should go to. “The users claim that they have not got their deposits back and hence they are entitled to the vehicles. However, investors say that the vehicles are registered under their names and hence should be returned to them,’’ an officer said.

7TH MAY 2010.

CITY LIMO CASE: EOW FACES NEW HURDLE

Firm Registered Cars On Investors’ Names But Later Gave Them On Hire

Mumbai: The economic offences wing (EOW) of the city police, investigating the City Limouzines cheating case, is now facing a new hurdle where victims are fighting victims. The bone of contention is the vehicles promised to the investors by the company as part of the scheme.

The company had collected money from the public, gave monthly returns to the investors and promised vehicles at the end of the five-year period. The company registered the vehicles in the name of the investors and gave them on hire in the intervening period.

While the company ran into trouble, the investors and the people who had hired the vehicles are now fighting among themselves. While the investors claim that they are the rightful owners in the RTO records, the users refuse to hand over the vehicles until the company repays the refundable deposit collected from them.

The police claimed that the investors are the rightful owners, though they accept that the users are also victims. City Limouzines, through an agreement with Bharatratna Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Pratishthan, gave around 1,200 vehicles—Skoda, Innova, Scorpio—on hire after a refundable deposit ranging between Rs 3.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh was made. Those who took the vehicles on hire got to use a brand new vehicle for five years by paying a meagre monthly rent. The company, however, cheated several investors by not purchasing the vehicles at all.

Halfway through the scheme, the company collapsed, leaving the users and investors in the lurch. The police’s stand that the investors have the first right is now being challenged in court. In some cases, the investors moved the court for the return of vehicles where the police supported them. The investors thus got their vehicles back.

“The end users have done nothing illegal and took the vehicles on hire after entering into a proper agreement. It is not for the police to take a stand. The court should take a call on this,’’ said advocate Bhavesh Parmar, who moved the Bombay HC challenging the police action.

Interestingly, neither the investors nor the users objected when banks and financial institutions took away the vehicles when the investors defaulted on loans. “The firm took loans from various banks to buy vehicles. The monthly bank instalments were paid by investors from the returns given by the company,’’ a police official said.

‘‘When the company stopped making payments, the investors also defaulted in their dues to the banks. Some investors were lucky that the loans were obtained from City Cooperative Credit society, a sister concern of City Limouzines. The society also collapsed and hence there is no demand to repay the loans.’’

=========

6th May 2010.

It is correct that Layak Ali, who filed the FIR in HYD did not include Masood's name. I have attached a copy of his FIR. One of you need to convince Mr. Layak Ali, to add a supplementary complaint to the FIR and add names of Masood, Seema Razzaki, Geeta Razzaki, Umar Razzaki, Rajesh Choudhary and the entire list that was circulated on this group a few weeks ago. This needs to be done at the earliest. I suggest you folks in HYD call for an urgent meeting this sunday along with Mr. Ali and go to CSS and get the supplmentary FIR filed for all the names. Masood is anyways being taken to Mumbai today but the supplementary FIR will get his name added to the CSS chargesheet which will get filed with AP High Court. If you folks don't get this done, it will be a challenge in recovering funds for HYD investors, so you need to get this done on war footing!

==========

4th May 2010

SC GETS TOUGH ON CHEQUE BOUNCE CASES

NEW DELHI: Delay in settling cheque bounce cases will now cost the defaulter dear, up to 20% of the cheque amount. The penalty for delayed settlement of the cheque amount, after conviction in the trial court, would rise steadily from 10% in district courts, 15% in high courts to a whopping 20% in the Supreme Court.

The SC on Monday took this radical step through a pioneering judgment which aims to curb the tendency among defaulters to sit over the amount tendered through a bounced cheque.

Saddled with 30 lakh cheque bounce cases, the SC accepted most of the suggestions offered by attorney general G E Vahanvati.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal also laid down guidelines for early settlement in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

The judgment, authored by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, indicated that defaulters going for early settlement before the trial court would have to pay just the principal amount with applicable interest.

But if they approched the district court for settlement after being convicted by the trial court, they would have to pay 10% of the cheque amount to avoid going to jail. So if a chque amount is for Rs 1 lakh, then to compound the offence before the district court, the defaulter has to pay an additional Rs 10,000 to avoid going to jail.

Similarly, if the defaulter agrees for settlement and compounding of the offence at the HC stage, then he would have to pay 15% of the cheque amount. The amount so collected would be given to Legal Aid Authorities of the respective states which provide free legal assistance to poor litigants in various forums, the SC said.

This judgment will go a long way in reducing the pendency of over 30 lakh cheque bounce cases which have jammed the wheels of justice already slowed down by pendency of 2.7 crore cases. During the hearing of a Section 138 case between Damodar S Prabhu and Sayed Babalal, the Bench observed that there had been an enormous rush of cases after cheque bounce was made a penal offence in 1989, followed by the amendment in 2002 providing for summary trial for early resolution of the dispute.

3rd may 2010

The EOW Mumbai trial should start soon as the chargesheet was filed on March 30th.

30th Apr 2010.

ED ATTACHES NARIMAN POINT PROPERTY IN CITY LIMO CASE

(ED) has attached a prime property in Nariman Point belonging to tainted investment company City Limouzines. The attached premises comprise 5,000 sq ft of office space and another 2,000 sq ft of terrace on the 16th floor of Maker Chambers VI, considered one of the high-profile buildings. The property is valued at over Rs 15 crore. The attachment was made unde the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to a source, the property was purchased in June 2009 by Kanu Realty, owned by City Limouzines’ chairman S M Masood’s first wife Chand and their daughter. “The amount collected from investors was used to buy it,’’ an official said.City Limouzines ran into trouble last August when cheques issued by the company as returns to the investors

bounced due to inadequate funds in the company’s bank accounts. In February, ED invoked the PMLA ,in the cheating case involving City Group companies, City Limouzines and City Realcom. ED officials had then attached two demand drafts of Rs 65 crore, which was to be credited in the company’s account, preventing diversion of funds. The money came after City Realcom surrendered a nearly 60-acre plot in Gurgaon, acquired from the government to set up a five-star hotel.

“The properties attached goes to the government. It is for the trial judge to decide whether the properties could be auctioned and money returned to the investors,’’ an official said. An attachment under PMLA overrides action under any other act.

The ED has been investigating the company for foreign exchange violations. At the same time, it could not invoke PMLA as one of the requirements was that a chargesheet under the IPC had to be filed against him or the company. The economic offences wing (EOW) investigating the cheating case against Masood had filed a chargesheet against the company and its directors Geeta Razzaki, his husband Umar and another director Rajesh Chaudhary.