Delhi Court Issues Summons To Supertech, MD In Case Alleging Fraudulent Booking Of Flat

A Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, has issued summons to Supertech Ltd. and its Managing Director Ram Kishore Arora in a case relating to the alleged fraudulent booking of a flat in one of the projects of the real estate company.

Metropolitan Magistrate Yashdeep Chahal said the record reveals that Supertech did not act fairly to the requests of the complainant and instead of coming to his rescue, it chose to continue with the "mischief" and refused to return the amount.

The judge also took note of the allegation that at the time of receiving the amount from the homebuyer, Supertech had no license to undertake construction of the project, which, the court said, points towards its fraudulent intention from the beginning. 

The court said since Arora was managing day to day affairs of the company, he can be said to have played an active role in taking the decision.

In proceedings against real estate agents Manish Chawla and Ankush Mehra for allegedly misappropriating and fraudulently parking his money with the Supertech, without their authorisation, the Complainant Gaurav Vij filed an application for summoning the company directors as additional accused.

The complainant argued before the Metropolitan Magistrate that the offence was committed by the accused in connivance with Supertech. He contended that Supertech, along with its director and managers, was not only privy to the cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the real estate agents, but that it also facilitated the continuation of the offences.

The court said that a Magistrate is not barred under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to issue summons against a person who is not named as an accused in the charge-sheet or complaint, if there some material on record against him.

Referring to the emails exchanged between the complainant and various officials of Supertech, the court said Vij's complaint, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, was duly conveyed to the directors. However, the company refused to refund the amount, and rather asked him to do booking in any other project of the company, the Magistrate observed.

The court said that despite continuous persuasion, Supertech took no cognizance of the allegations made by the complainant in his communication to the directors.

“I am of the view that Section 35 read with Section 37 of IPC would come to the rescue of the complainant as the company chose to retain the amount of the complainant despite knowledge of the manner in which the said amount was obtained. The allegation of the complainant that the company was complicit in this modus operandi of the accused agents right from the beginning cannot be summarily brushed aside at this stage," it added.

While holding that there was a prima face case against Supertech, the court said: “The retention of the entire amount, received as proceeds of deception, without plausible cause and offering to divert the money into some other project instead of returning the same as well as the failure to take any action against the erring persons points towards a prima face case against the company.”

The court further said that for summoning the directors for the criminal acts done by the company, the facts of the case must reveal the specific roles played by them in the commission of the offence. It added that the corporate veil cannot be touched unless specific acts are attributed to the managerial personnel.

The court held that the other directors listed in the application cannot be summoned in their personal capacity, since no specific roles could be attributed to them.

The Court concluded that the MD can be said to have played an active role in taking the decision not to refund the amount to the complaint, and of offering to divert the same into some other project.

"As regards the summoning of Mr. Guneet Singh Sodhi, Ms. Sulekha Mandahar and Rakesh Kumar Jain, I am of the view that they were merely acting as communication channels between the complainant and the company. These persons were neither involved in the commission of the fraudulent acts in question nor in the validation of those acts by the management. Accordingly, the prayer for the issuance of process against these persons is denied," the Magistrate added.

Case Title: Gaurav Vij versus Manish Chawla & Ors.

Dated: 24/12/2022