Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR
Simbhaoli Sugars Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Heard Shri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the State Bank of India, Shri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for Punjab National Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the Bank of India, Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the UCO Bank, Sri Manish Trivedi, learned counsel for the ICICI Bank, Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for Bank of Baroda and Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for one of the Directors and Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for Intervening Applicants (Cane Co-operative Societies).
2. This is a shocking case of clear connivance of unscrupulous businessman and banks, wherein the bank officials have knowingly allowed the petitioner to syphon away almost Rs.1300/- crores of the public money. Here the banks
The judgment establishes that banks are liable for negligence in loan sanctioning, failing to comply with RBI guidelines, and engaging in connivance with borrowers, thereby enabling fraud.
Failure to adhere to RBI guidelines in loan disbursement constitutes fraud, leading to contempt for willful defaults and necessitating CBI investigation.
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actions of the borrower-Company, including non-repayment, diversion of funds, and disposal of assets, constituted wilful default under the....
Court ruled that CBI's investigation revealed no criminal wrongdoing by bank officials under SARFAESI Act, confirming lawful procedures and directing the petitioner to pursue remedies in special cour....
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
Listen Article