Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Indur Kartar Chhugani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra At the instance of EOW, Mumbai - Respondents
CA NO.951 OF 2015 WITH CWP NO. 4406 OF 2015
Decided on : 19.1.2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Indur K. Chhugani – Appellant in person.
Ms. J. P. Yagnik APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State).
Mr. Mehboob A. Inamdar Police Inspector present in Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validation of the attachment order under the MPID Act and the dismissal of the appellant's challenges based on previous judgments and findings.
Headnote:
MPID Act - Criminal Appeal - 1999 - [MPID Act, 1999] - The judgment discusses the validity of the attachment order passed under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act) and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court upheld the attachment order and dismissed the appeal, citing previous judgments and findings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the possession of flats attached under the MPID Act. The appellant claimed to have made a bid for purchasing the flats and alleged that the attachment was unlawful. The investigating officer found the appellant and his family occupying the flats without valid ownership documents. The appellant raised various legal proceedings and challenges against the attachment order and show cause notice issued to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the attachment order and notice to the appellant were legal and valid. It relied on previous judgments and upheld the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had rejected the appellant's contentions. The court also dismissed the appellant's request for video recording of the court proceedings.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the attachment order, the appellant's possession of the flats, and the validity of the legal proceedings initiated against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of the Division Bench judgment, which had already rejected the appellant's contentions. The court also emphasized that the appellant's attempts to subvert the judicial process and make personal allegations against the judges were not acceptable.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, except for the aspect of video recording of court proceedings, which was also rejected. The court clarified that the appellant could raise any grievance regarding the loss of records before the Designated Court.
(Per S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.)
This Criminal Appeal (Appeal No. 951 of 2015) challenges the order passed by the designated Court dated 30th July, 2015 exercising powers under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short the “MPID Act”). The impugned order is passed on a Miscellaneous Application and we would refer to the details thereof.
2) The Appellant before us is the original Notice in MPID Case No. 12 of 2005, which has been filed by Respondent No. 1 State. That case has been filed against one Rajkumar Basantani under various sections of the MPID Act. It would be necessary to refer to that case in some details. One M/s. Soundcraft Industries Limited was granted financial assistance to the extent of Rs.1000 lacs. It was an assistance granted by the Punjab National Bank. M/s. Seema Investments Private Limited, owner of Flat No. 502, 5th floor, Pinky Panorama Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 6th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai stood as guarantor to the loan extended to M/s. Soundcraft Industries Limited. M/s. Soundcraft Industries Limited was controlled by one Rajkumar Basantani along with his associates. This M/s. Soundcraft Industries Limited also obtained the loan/financial assistance from another bank, namely, Bharat Overseas Bank. In order to secure the financial assistance granted and rendered by these banks, M/s. Seema Investments Private Limited stood as colateral security. It created equitable mortgage in respect of another flat No. 501 situate on the same floor and of the same building. It is alleged these flats are having one entrance. They are joined from inside and treated as one residential unit. Appellant Indur Chhugani, his wife and his son claim to be in actual physical possession of these flats.
3) It is the case of the prosecution that Rajkumar Basantani failed to repay the amounts due and payable to these banks. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the “SARFAESI Act”) were initiated. Under the said proceedings and reaching the satisfaction that the concerned persons failed to repay the loan, the mortgaged properties were directed to be seized. On 23rd June, 2004, symbolic possession of the flats was taken. Thereafter, under the directions of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, the Registrar of the said Court took possession of the flats under a panchanama and handed them over to the two banks. The said Rajkumar Basantani faced proceedings under the MPID Act and as per the provisions thereof, the designated Court passed an order of attachment of these flats. That order was passed on 19th January, 2005. The Investigating Officer attached these flats under the panchanama of 8th February, 2005. On 12th February, 2005, the concerned banks, at whose instance the flats were taken over by the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai under the SARFAESI Act, were served with a copy of the attachment order passed by the MPID designated Court.
4) The said Indur Chhugani/Appellant before us claimed to have approached both the banks and placed his bid for purchasing the same. It is his case that he tendered the amount of alleged agreed price of both these flats and handed over Demand Draft in the sum of Rs.50.91 lacs. However, according to the banks, there was no concluded contract. The amount offered by Indur Chhugani was considered to be below the reserved or upset price. The proposal of Indur Chhugani was rejected and his Demand Draft was returned to him without encashment.
5) It is in these circumstances that the Investigating Officer and investigating the offences alleged to have been committed under the MPID Act found that Indur Chhugani, his wife and sons are occupying these flats. He informed the MPID Court about the same. The MPID Court issued directions for inspection and accordingly, the inspection revealed that the sai
