M. S. KARNIK
Hasmukh Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned APP for State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners- complainants.
2. These applications, by consent of the parties, are heard together and disposed of by a common order.
3. The allegations pertain to failure on the part of the applicants to handover the flats in the project undertaken by the applicants with a promise to handover flats within the stipulated time. The complainants had parted with substantial consideration despite which the applicants who had undertaken to complete the project failed to do so and hence the allegations under sections 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2676 of 2019 is in respect of a complaint filed on behalf of eleven (11) flat purchasers. Likewise, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2678 of 2019 arises out of a complaint filed on behalf of eleven (11) flat purchasers. The only difference in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2678 of 2019 is that the applicants therein (developers), the complainants (flat purchasers) and the 'DHFL' (finance company) had entered into tripartite agreement, the loan which the 'DHFL' had sanctione
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.