Criminal Petition Nos. 8084, 8085, 8360 and 8445 of 2016. Case: Agrigold Farm Estates India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Petition Nos. 8084, 8085, 8360 and 8445 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Diwakara, Advocate and For Respondents: Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP |
| Judges | Anand Byrareddy, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 162; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 420; Karnataka Protection Oe Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 - Section 9 |
| Judgement Date | March 30, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
-
The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is directed to take notice for the State.
-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
-
These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner is the same in these four petitions. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in the name and style of Agrigold Farm Estates India Limited. It was said to have been converted into a private limited company under a fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated 30.11.2002. It is said to be engaged in the business of real estate which has several branch officers designated as business centres. In Karnataka alone there are a total of 57 branches employing about 250 employees. The petitioner has a scheme under which its customers can purchase plots on installment basis. On the completion of the payment of the entire cost the plot would be registered in the name of the customer and other formalities such as registration would take place. It is claimed that the customer was to remit the expenses of stamp duty, registration and other charges apart from complying with other formalities of producing details of their identity and address proof etc., If there was default in payment of the price the transaction would be cancelled and an agreed percentage of the amount would be deducted from the amount paid and the balance would be refunded. It is claimed that in order to maintain cordial relationships and to overcome practical difficulties when the customer defaults not willfully, but on account of unavoidable circumstances, there were instances where the company has considered the refund of full advance paid and wherever the customer had applied for cancellation of the transaction, at the earliest point of time. This business has been carried on by the petitioner for over 14 years and is said to have built a reputation in the market in several thousand developed plots having been sold in course of time. It is stated that the petitioner company has so marketed farm land plots and other properties not only in Karnataka, but in many other states and even in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The petitioner claims to carry on business in Karnataka through one of its associates, M/s. Agrigold Construction Private Limited. It now transpires that the petitioner Company has become a victim in an internecine competition in political rivalry. In that, during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial