Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ
Narayan S/o Chhaganlal Gadodia – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
1. Respondent No.2 in the present application has lodged FIR against the applicants with Police Station Vedantnagar, Aurangabad City on 18.08.2021, vide FIR No.229/2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as “IPC” and “MPID” respectively for brevity).
2. Respondent No.2 – Informant has lodged the FIR on behalf of two business entities i.e. Kisan Agro Industries and Anand Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. He states that the partners of Kisan Agro Industries, namely, Annasaheb Mane Patil and Sharad Gandhi have authorized him to look after the affairs of the said firm, vide registered power of attorney dated 05.06.2008. He further states that he and his son are Directors of the other entity Anand Cotgin Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid two business entities are engaged in business of sale and purchase of cotton yarn. Respondent No.2 has stated that applicant no.1 had approached the aforesaid two business entities through a broker from Indore named Arpit Jain for purchasing cotto
The court held that disputed facts regarding the nature of transactions and intent behind non-payment necessitate a full trial, preventing the quashing of the FIR.
Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.
The court established that transactions promising returns on deposits fall under the MPID Act, and the police are mandated to investigate when a cognizable offence is disclosed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investments made in the case fell within the definition of 'deposit' under section 2(c)(i) of the MPID Act, and that the accused had commi....
The applicants' actions of obtaining loans in farmers' names do not constitute deposits or fall under the MPID Act, justifying their discharge from related charges.
IBC Section 96 moratorium does not stay MPID Act Section 8 attachments of malafide transferred investor funds, absent debtor-creditor tie and due to distinct legislative fields with no repugnancy.
The MPIDFE Act allows for the attachment of property to protect the interests of depositors, regardless of when the property was acquired. The affidavit filed by the competent authority complied with....
The court upheld the attachment of properties under the KPIDFE Act, emphasizing the necessity to protect depositors' interests despite the appellants' claims of procedural impropriety and lack of com....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
