Samay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Samay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Sutaria, Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, Mr. Nilesh Patil
For the Respondents: Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishanan, Mr. Y. Y. Dabake

Table of Content
1. criminal prosecution for conspiracy and fraud in financial dealings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of the conspiratorial conduct and fraud associated with bond transactions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defense arguments regarding non-involvement in malfeasance and routine business practices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. assessment of evidence against applicants stating their misconduct in bond deals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

ORDER

1.The applicants are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 120-B , read with Sections 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act .

2.The applicants are aggrieved by orders passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Mumbai, rejecting application for discharge preferred by them.

3.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

(I) The applicants Sh. Vipul Shah, Sh. Switto Shah and Sh.Anil K. Upadhyaya, were Directors of Samay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad. The applicant Vishwas Pandurang Ugale and Bhupal Dattatray Chavan, were working in Vasantdada Sahakari Bank Ltd. (VSBBL). Accused R. Madhusudan was working as DGM with Karnataka Rajya Kaigarika Sahakari Ban

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAYPRAKASH D. NAIK, JSamay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusThe State of Maharashtra – Respondent

APPELLATE SIDE,BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Samay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent