Court refuses to quash proceedings against Supertech top brass

[] A Delhi court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against three top officials of real estate major Supertech Ltd, for allegedly cheating a man who had booked his flat in one of its projects in Greater Noida

Additional sessions court judge, RK Tripathi dismissed the revision petition filed by the managing director RK Arora, director GL Khera and manager Guneet Singh of Supertech Ltd, against criminal proceedings, saying that they cannot escape liability and have been rightly summoned by the magisterial court.

You are reading: Court refuses to quash proceedings against Supertech top brass

Read also : NCLT admits insolvency plea against Emaar MGF Land, appoints resolution professional

“It is a well settled principle of law that a company does not act on its own. The accused persons are responsible for managing day-to-day affairs of the company. The complainant always met these persons, to know about the progress of construction of the unit booked by him in ECO Village. It was on their advice and offer that the complainant agreed for relocation of his flat from ECO Village 2 to ECO Village 3. Thus, they cannot escape from their liability and they have rightly been impleaded as a party in the case,” the judge said.

[] HC refuses to unseal more than 1,000 flats in Supertech’s Greater Noida project

A magisterial court had on June 6, 2016, summoned the accused to face trial for offences under sections 420 (cheating), 403 (misappropriation of funds) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC on the complaint of Delhi resident Rakesh Chauhan. According to the complaint, Chauhan had in 2010 booked a flat in Supertech’s ECO Village 2 project in Greater Noida and paid the amount as per the demand of officials of the firm. He had alleged that he enquired about the progress of construction from the accused but when no construction commenced, the accused informed him about certain hurdles and advised him to go for the flat in their other project named ECO Village 3.

Read also : Madipakkam property market: An overview

The complainant accepted the offer through letters and e-mails but later through an advertisement in a newspaper in 2013, he came to know that accused were selling constructed units of both projects to others and not considering his allotment, he alleged. He further said that all the three accused started avoiding him and did not respond to his queries. The court accepted the contention of the complainant and said, “Considering their acts in the commission of offence in the case, the trial court has rightly summoned them for facing trial. In the given factual matrix of the case, in my view, the revisionists have rightly been summoned to face trial in the case,” it said.

The accused, in their revision petition, had denied the allegations against them and claimed that the transaction, as alleged, was carried out between the company M/s Supertech Ltd and the complainant and no criminality can be attributed to the accused.

Copyright belongs to:

Category: Lifestyle

Debora Berti

Università degli Studi di Firenze, IT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button