Delhi Court Charges Supertech with Fraud: Latest Update

                New Delhi: A Delhi court recently ordered the 
framing of charges for the offence of fraud 
against real estate company Supertech 
Limited, its managing director RK Arora, and 
two 
agents of the company.
Gaurav Vij, the complainant, alleged that he 
was promised returns on investment and 
invested Rs 11.8 lakh in 2013, but the funds 
were diverted to another project without his 
knowledge.

Later, he was promised a refund that was 
subsequently cancelled by the company.
The court of judicial magistrate first class 
Yashdeep Chahal said that the act of diversion 
was a result of the direction of "Management".

"For all intents and purposes, the word 
‘Management' needs to be understood in a 
certain context and not in a general sense. It is 
so because the management of the company 
essentially vests in the managing director of 
the company, unless proved otherwise," said 
the court.

The court, agreeing with the submissions of 
advocate Raajan Chawla, said that the counsel 
has rightly argued that in ordinary 
circumstances, the decisions of the company 
which are 
expressly attributable to the management of 
the company, essentially flow from the MD of 
the company, unless the company comes 
forward to show that the decision was taken 
by 
some other officer of the company.
In the present matter, the proof of criminality 
allegedly committed by Arora lies in the e-mail 
communications between the complainant and 
the company, the court noted.

Further saying that the e-mail communications 
categorically indicate that the case of the 
complainant was placed before "Management 
M/s. Supertech Limited", as made out from the 
e-mail dated July 19, 2014. At one stage, the 
complainant was informed on Oct 14, 2014 
that his case had been processed for a refund.
Thereafter, no refund was given and on Nov 20, 
2014, the complainant was informed that his 
case had been put up with "Management" and 
the mandate given by the management 
was not to give any refund but to transfer the 
funds of the complainant to some other 
project of the accused company. The material 
on record does not appear to be groundless in 
nature and it cannot be said that no case is 
made out if the material is accepted as 
unrebutted, the court stated.
Owing to the corporate veil enjoyed by a 
corporate entity, no outsider is expected to 
know meticulously about the internal affairs of 
a company and it would be unreasonable to 
expect 
the complainant, being an outsider/investor, to 
meticulously specify the acts and omissions 
attributable to the officer of the company, the 
court said.
"Although the complete picture has not been 
revealed yet, the material on record so far is 
certainly not inadequate to completely absolve 
the accused persons. Accordingly, the 
accused persons are liable to be charged for 
the commission of offence under Section 420 
read with Section 34 of IPC," the court 
concluded.


Source : Times of India