Supreme Court of India
MOHAMMAD SHAFA-AT KHAN AND ORS. versus THE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS.
- Decided
- 2 August 2007
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2007] 8 S.C.R. 776 · 2007 INSC 807
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
DR. ARIJIT PASA¥ AT, J. 1. Leave granted.
p. 777, margin B
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the application filed by appellants.
p. 777, margin B
Challenge in the petition before the High Court was to the passed by a learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellants. Grievances in short were that one M/s Habib Investments incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (in short the advertised in various newspapers inviting the general public to subscribe various Fixed Deposits and saving schemes. Since the schemes were lucrative, many innocent persons subscribed to the schemes. Various persons were appointed as agents on commission basis to collect the money subscribers. Many people who were to get money complained of cheating stating that on the date of maturity, the certificates issued were not honoured. First Information Report was lodged with the Police Station, Lahori Delhi. Initially, the application was filed for appointment of Receiver in respect of Mis Habib Group of Companies and to make an order to attach properties. Five properties were attached. A public notice was issued by learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing attachment of the properties. Grievance was made that notwithstanding the order of attachment the properties were either dboosed of or dealt with in a manner contrary to order of attachment.
p. 777, margin B
The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected application filed by the appellants on the ground that they had no standi to file a revision petition. The High Court by a single line dismissed the petition filed before it.
pp. 777–778, margin G
During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the non official respondents that they are willing to dispose off the properties to meet the demands of the creditors. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after having violated various· orders passed, one of the non-official respondents has now come to dispose off the properties to meet the demands of creditors and to wipe out the liabilities. Ultimately, the people who are the creditors have to get back their money. Without entering into the matters relating to the commission of contempt, it would be appropriate for the concerned Court to work out the modalities as to how the properties can be sold to get the highest price so that the dues of the creditors and the liabilities can be discharged.
p. 778, margin A
Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal directing the concerned Court to work out the details and the modalities after hearing learned counsel for the parties so that the amounts due to various persons towards creditors and liabilities to be discharged, can be paid.
p. 778, margin C
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. N.J. Appeal disposed of.
p. 778, margin D