The Karnataka High Court in a relief to Former Wipro Director Azim Premji and his wife, Yasmeen A Premji quashed two private plaints by Chennai-based NGO.
Azim Premji is an Indian business tycoon, engineer, and philanthropist, who devoted his entire life in engineering the IT Industry of the country and having established one of the premium IT companies viz., WIPRO Limited and has set up Azim Premji Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation with a vision of enhancing quality and equity in the public school education system.
Yasmeen A Premji is the wife of Azim Premji and is a Director of Azim Premji foundation and sits on the Board of Governors of the Azim Premji University.
The respondent, India Awake For Transparency (IAFT) filed a private complaint against the Petitioners before the Special Court for Economic offences, Bangalore city alleging violation of Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. In the said complaint, the respondent who claims to be public-spirited or pro bono publico, has alleged that while the petitioners were functioning as Directors of M/s Vidya Investment & Trading Company Limited (VITC), in the report filed by them before the Registrar of Companies they have not chosen to give correct information for one reason or the other to the Registrar of Companies.
It was alleged that the Director’s report in terms of Section 217 of the Companies Act of 1956 did not make disclosure of several facts relevant to operation of VITC, more so, as regards the fact that such company has become a subsidiary of another company viz., Hasham Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Limited, VITC’s subsidiary Prazim Trading Investment Company Limited was carrying on non-banking financial business, is not registered with the RBI, there was no compliance with RBI Regulations, etc.
It was alleged that the omission of material facts in the directors’ report by the petitioners was an offence under Section 447 of the Act of 2013 punishable under Section 448 of Act of 2013 and in this regard, prosecution was sought to be initiated against the petitioners.
The Special Court, on July 3, 2017, had dismissed the complaints against the petitioners on the grounds that the complainant was neither the Registrar of Companies nor a shareholder of the company, or authorised by the Central Government to file the complaint. Against this, the criminal revision petitions were filed by the complainant.
The single judge bench of Justice Govindaraj while allowing the petitions, set aside the orders passed by the Sessions Court in two criminal revision petitions on July 3, 2020, and confirmed the order passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences based on the private complaints filed by IAFT.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
