Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.GADKARI, SHYAM C.CHANDAK
Dulisons Cereals, Through its proprietor Smt. Kanta Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, (Through Competent Authority appointed under the MPID Act, 1999) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
1) Present Appeal filed under Section 11 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short ‘MPID Act’) impugning the Order dated 4th November 2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (MPID), City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay, thereby, rejecting the Application at Exh.11, in Misc. Application No.151/2020 (for short ‘MA/151/2020’), in MPID Special Case No.1/2014, seeking quashing and setting aside of said Order and to allow the Application (Exh.11) thereby staying the proceedings in MA/151/2020.
2) Heard Mr. Bhanushali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, Ms. Patil, learned Special PP and Smt. Shinde, learned APP for the Respondent No.1, State and Mr. Lakhawat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 (“NSEL”).
3) Facts giving rise to this Appeal are as under :-
3.1) The said MPID Case has been filed for the offences under Section 3 of MPID Act and Section 120B read with Sections 406, 409, 420, 467 and 477A of IPC. Therein Appellant and Smt. Kanta Gupta are being prosecuted as Accused Nos.129 and 130. Smt. Kanta Gupta has been a sole proprietor of the Appellant. Respondent No.1 has filed said MA/15
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 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....
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's moratorium precludes enforcement actions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as both statutes serve distinct legislative purposes without infringing on ....
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....
Applicants misrepresented loan transactions, which did not constitute 'deposits' under the MPID Act, thus the FIR was partially quashed.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 32A of the IBC, as discussed in the recent Supreme Court judgment in Manish Kumar v. Union of India, which highlighted the immunit....
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.
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
