DB restrains MD, others from selling property, operation of accounts

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 5: In a Public Interest Litigation filed by Trilok Singh and others against Dutta Finance Companies, which have allegedly cheated the depositors to the tune of more than Rs 20 crore, Division Bench of High Court comprising Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Hasnain Massodi has directed the Managing Director Harpal Singh Dutta and other Directors of six companies not to enter into any transaction of 20 kanal of land at Kud, 11 kanal of land at Jhajjar Kotli and godown at Yard No 6 Narwal and the oil tankers, which might be in their possession.
Division Bench also restrained them from operating their bank accounts in the name of these companies. “The status report filed by respondents discloses that the challan has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu on July 19, 2013 where M/s Gurcharan Singh Dutta, Harpal Singh Dutta, Bhajan Kour and Gurdeep Singh have been named as accused for running different fictitious companies under the name and style Dutta Financers India Ltd, Dutta Trading Corporation, Bhana Financers India Ltd, GESESS Associates, Dutta Financers and Traders and Dutta Wine Trading Companies”, the DB said.
The report further disclosed that after accumulating about Rs 20 crore from different depositors they (accused) allegedly purchased the land and 12 oil tankers out of which two were seized in the case. Moreover, these accused persons had issued fictitious fixed deposits receipts to different depositors which were neither reflected in the ledgers of the companies nor the money taken on such cash receipts was reflected in the Income Tax Returns or balance sheet of the companies.
At this stage, Senior Advocate S S Lehar appearing for the PIL pointed out that one Amarjeet Singh Dutta, son of accused Gurcharan Singh Dutta has been accepting cash from the petitioners at Jammu. He said that the petitioners appeared to have deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164-A CrPC or made statement before the IO under Section 161 CrPC about the role of Amarjeet Singh Dutta.
About the role of Amarjeet Singh Dutta, Advocate Lehar submitted, “mere fact that he is residing in Nepal doesn’t make any difference because he has been visiting Jammu and accepting deposits from the petitioners and other depositors”.
On this, Division Bench said, “we would expect the IO to proceed further in the light of the statement made by Senior Advocate SS Lehar. In the meanwhile, the Magistrate, who is seized of the trial, shall proceed with the trial and the pendency of the PIL shall not be construed as an impediment in proceeding with the trial”.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here