亚博体育官网首页

The Supreme Court has rejected the bail plea of a former promoters Surendra Kumar Hooda of the real estate company for allegedly cheating investors and asked them to surrender. A bence of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on October 4 dismissed the plea of Surendra Kumar Hooda, ex-promoters and directors of real estate company AN Buidwell. The court was hearing the plea filed by Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi challenging the Delhi High Court order refusing the bail plea. Hooda has sought regular bail while Gandhi moved for anticipatory bail plea. 鈥淚n such circumstances, we do not find any reason to continue the protection of the petitioners. The scheme was sanctioned under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The attempt on the part of the promoters to stall the criminal proceedings through the scheme was not approved by the High Court. We find no error in the impugned orders passed by the High Court rejecting the please for Bail and Anticipatory Bail made by the petitioners,鈥� the court said. The court directed Surendra Kumar Hooda to surrender within eight weeks. 鈥淪o far as the other petitioner (Sunil Gandhi) is concerned, let him not be arrested for a period of 8 weeks in connection with the subject cases arising out of the three FIRs, being FIR Nos.64,114 and 116 of 2016, presently registered with Economic Offences Wing Police Station and being investingated by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police.  Sunil Gandhi shall also have liberty similar to that granted by us to Surendra Kumar Hooda, and he shall be entitled to apply for Anticipatory Bail afresh before the concerned Court if there are changed circumstances warranting fresh consideration of such prayer,鈥� The court said. However, the court has given liberty to apply for bail afresh on the basis of their statement that some new developments are there. The allegations against both the petitioners are similar. The crux of their charges is that the firm of which they were promoters failed to give possession of residential and commercial units to a large number of house buyers despite making large sums of money.  The investors had accused the corporation of making false promises about statutory permissions and land availability, as well as siphoning monies from the company.