Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ.
Ramesh Satpal Nagpal - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1350 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Leena Patil, SPP, Mr. Prashant Mishra a/w Mr. Bharat Jadhav, Ms. Chahat Modi, Ms. Purva Birla, Ms. Ishita Bhaiya, Ms. Krish Kariya, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Lakhawat a/w Mr. Vinit Vaidya i/by MZM Legal
MPID Act provides no mechanism for releasing attached property to owner after auction permission; court correctly rejected deposit offer at lower valuation, accepting higher commercial valuation report.
Headnote:(A) MPID Act, 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Attachment of properties - No provision for release of attached property in favour of owner after order permitting auction - Property put to auction thrice with reserve price based on one valuation report, but no bids received - Appellant’s offer to deposit reserve price rejected as another valuation report assessed much higher value - Trial Court rightly considered higher valuation and rejected application - Appeal lacks merit. (Paras 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Proprietor of trading company engaged in spices business became member of exchange; arraigned as accused in special case arising from crime registered under IPC Sections 120
(B), 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A), investigation transferred applying MPID provisions. Properties attached under MPID and PML Acts. Appellant deposited amount proposing handover of goods, arrested and granted bail. Objected to absolute attachment of specific property; auction permitted and conducted thrice unsuccessfully at reserve price. Sought release by depositing differential amount matching reserve.
Findings of Court:
Appeal dismissed; no interference with Trial Court order rejecting release application.
Issues: Whether attached property can be released to owner post-auction permission order upon deposit of reserve price based on lower valuation report, disregarding higher valuation.
Ratio Decidendi: MPID Act contains no provision for property release to owner after auction order; no reason to permit bidding merely due to unsold status after multiple auctions; higher valuation report accepted over lower one valuing property as commercial land. Result : Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges mpid property attachment order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant deposited funds amid failed auctions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1) By this Appeal, the Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned Order dated 16th October, 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, MPID in Misc. Application No.1444 of 2023 in Spl. Case No.1 of 2014.
2) Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Appellant, submits that, the Appellant is the proprietor of the Shree Radhey Trading Company, engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of spices for over 30 years. The Appellant company became member of NSEL in September, 2011 and continued until 31st July, 2013, when its membership was cancelled / suspended. The Appellant is arraigned as an accused No.59 in Special MPID Case No.1 of 2014 arising from C.R. No.89 of 2013.
3) A crime was registered on 30th September, 2013 at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of one Pankaj R. Saraf, for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) of Indian Penal Code against the Directors and key management persons of NSEL, FTIL and 25 Borrowers/Trading Members of NSEL, along with certain brokers of NSEL and others. The said investigation was subsequently transferred to the E.O.W., Unit-5, Mumbai vide C.R. No.89 of 2013 whereupon Sections 3 and 4 of MPID came to be applied by the E.O.W.
3.1) Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that, several accused were arrested and thereafter, released on bail by the Special MPID Court as well as by this Court on regular Bail as well as on Anticipatory Bail. During the course of investigation, various properties were attached by the investigation agencies under the provisions of the MPID Act and PML Act.
3.2) He submitted that, during the hearing of the bail Application, the Appellant had made an oral proposal to deposit an amount of Rs.25 lakhs quarterly, upon which the Respondent No.2 was to hand over the goods, without admitting any liability. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant deposited an amount of Rs.29 lakhs with the Respondent No.2 on 13th April, 2016. It is submitted that, they are not aware about what is the present status of the said fixed deposit.
3.3) He submitted that, the Appellant was arrested on 26th February, 2016 and released on bail by the Special MPID Court on 30th March, 2016 subject to certain conditions.
3.4) Despite having deposited Rs.29 lakhs and having addressed various mails to Respondent No.2, calling upon them to handover the goods, the same was entirely ignored. Learned Advocate submitted that, in this backdrop, the Appellant filed objections in respect of the property notified at serial No.1 in Exhibit 74 being made absolute under the MPID Act. The said objections are pending before the Trial Court.
3.5) He further submitted that, pursuant to the attachment of property being made absolute by the Special MPID Court Order, as well as, by an Order of the Supreme Court Committee, the said property put up for auction thrice by publishing advertisements in newspapers. The Bid Price and Reserve Price was shown as 48 lakhs. However, despite having put up for auction thrice, not a single buyer had come forward to bid for the said property.
3.6) Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that, the Appellant is willing to deposit the differential amount before this Hon’ble Court for release of the property. However, the said application for release was rejected by the impugned Order. In these circumstances, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
4) Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 opposed the Appeal. He drew our attention to paragraph No.12 of the impugned Order and submitted that the valuation given by HDFC Quicker Realty was incorrect, as it was based on the property being an agricultural land. However, from the valuation carried out by Notiyal and Associates, is vastly different as the said property is stated to be a commercial
