The main legal point established in the judgment is that the leave and licence agreement did not create any right, title, or interest in favor of the accused, and the impugned order for property attachment was unsustainable under the MPID Act.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the owners of the property, as their property is attached pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, designated under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (‘MPID’ Act), making the show cause notice of attachment absolute by exercising powers under Section 8 of the MPID Act.

Brief Facts:

2. The appellants are the owners of the property in question, i.e. Shop Nos. 1 and 2 in the building known as Prem Bhanu Apartment, IC Colony, Borivali (West) (‘said shops’). FIR came to be registered on 15th February 2000 against M/s Technology Connection and M/s. Techcons Shelterettes Ltd. The allegation was that one Mr Joseph Dennis Vaz, his wife and his son were running the said alleged financial establishments. The case of the prosecution is that there was a scheme of recruiting candidates to the Gulf countries, but later on, the accused set up a scheme for giving homes to the aged and homeless senior citizens. The appellants are not arraigned as accused in the case. During the investigation, the police sealed the said shops and took possession of them as per directions of the designated court, on the ground that the accused was in possession of the said shops pursuant to a leave and licence agreement executed by the owner.

CASE OF APPELLANTS:

3. The appellants' case is that the said shops were initially standing in the name of M/s. Deepak Constructions, which was a partnership firm. Subsequently, the partnership firm was dissolved and said shops were handed over to Deepak Gogri (“original owner”), the partner of the said partnership firm. The present appellants are brought on record of the appeal as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Deepak Gogri after his demise pending the appeal. The said shops were given on leave and licence basis to the accused by executing an agreement for leave and licence on 26th June 1991, which was renewed up to the year 1999. Since there was default in payment of rent, possession of the said shops was taken over by the owner in March 2000.

4. Said shops were attached pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Judge, MPID Court, as the said shops were given on leave and licence basis to the accused. The original owner was served with a show cause notice dated 11th November 2002 for attachment of the said shops under section 8 of the MPID Act. Hence, the original owner had raised his objections opposing the attachment by filing an application numbered as MA No. 622 of 2002. In the said application, the original owner contended that the said shops were initially owned by M/s. Deepak Constructions and requisite share certificates bearing nos. 19 and 20 were issued in the name of M/s. Deepak Constructions. The said M/s. Deepak Constructions had entered into a leave and licence agreement on or about 26th June 1991 with Mr Joseph Vaz for two years, and the said agreement was renewed for a further period up to 25th June 1999. It was the contention of the original owner that after the expiry of said leave and licence agreement, the licensee did not vacate the said shops; however, finally, in March 2000, possession of the said shops was handed over to the original owner. Thus, the original owner contended that he was the owner of the said shops and was a member of the registered cooperative society with respect to the said shops. The original owner contended that there was no other transaction with respect to the said shops either by the original owner or M/s. Deepak Constructions in favour of the accused.

5. It was the contention of the original owner that he was a partner of M/s. Deepak Constructions who had constructed 18 flats and 5 shops. The original owner, being a partner of the said construction company, retained the said shops, a garage and a flat on the first floor. Thus, the original owner contended that there was no malafide transaction with respect to the said shops and th