0

SUPREME COURT QUASHED THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT AND AWARDED THE EXTENSION OF TIME IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

Blog, CIvil Appeal, Indian law, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6411-6418 OF 2023

DATED ON: OCTOBER 03, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

INTRODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the High Court’s decision to dismiss applications for taking on record their written statements in a civil suit. The court ruled that the 30-day period for filing written statements had expired on 08.03.2020. The court also ruled in Sagufa Ahmed and Others Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317, since the orders of this that the order dated 23.03.2020, effective from 15.03.2020, would not benefit the applicants/defendants since the limitation period had expired. The court also ruled that the court’s orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India only extended the period of limitation, not the period up to which delay can be condoned.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff, IL and FS Financial Services Limited, filed a suit for recovery of money and consequential reliefs in C.S. No. 177 of 2019 against nine defendants. The 30-day period for filing written statements expired on 08.03.2020 and the condonable period of 90 days expired on 06.06.2020.

The appellants filed applications for the defendants on 20.01.2021, requesting an extension of the time for the defendants’ written statements. The reasons for this were the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic, the Government of India’s advisories, the Disaster Management Act, the lockdown imposed by the Government of West Bengal, and the closure of the answering applicant’s office.

The affidavits relied on the court’s order dated 23.03.2020 and 10.07.2020, which extended the period of limitation until further orders. The plaintiffs opposed these applications, arguing that the orders would not help since the limitation period had expired before 15.03.2020. The plaintiff relied on the judgment of 18.09.2020 in Sagufa Ahmed to support its contention. The High Court accepted the plaintiff’s stand but did not take the written statements on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Article-142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc.-

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ORDER 5 RULE 1(1): Summons.— When a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defence, if any, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on that defendant. Provided that no such summons shall be issued when a defendant has appeared at the presentation of plaint and admitted the plaintiff’s claim

Order 8 Rule 1:Written statement.- The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”

ORDER 8 RULE 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.

COMMERCIAL COURT ACT:

Section – 16: Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes-

(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
  • Whether the appellants are allowed to file the written statement after the expiration the limited time period in the special circumstances or not.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Counsel for the appellants, used the judgment in Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited, (2022) 5 SCC 112, to argue that extraordinary measures are crucial in extraordinary circumstances. The court noted that orders of 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, and 10.07.2020 were addressed in the same In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The court distinguished Sagufa Ahmed’s case (supra) in paras 28.1, 28.2 and 33.4 of Prakash Corporates (supra), stating that the period envisaged in the order dated 23.09.2021 should be excluded from computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement. The court ruled that the decision in Sagufa Ahmed is irrelevant to the present case, as the extended period expired on 06.06.2020.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Mr. Sahil Tagotra, learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the High Court and submitted that the applicants have forfeited their right to file the written statements and the hon’ble High Court justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and not taking the written statements on record.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for statutes of limitations in cases related to the pandemic. The court took suo motu cognizance and issued orders under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, protecting parties’ rights and ensuring their remedies and defenses were not barred. The orders of 23.03.2020 and 08.03.2021 were issued in a case involving Sagufa Ahmed (supra), which extended the limitation prescribed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 until further orders. The court also extended the period between 15.03.2020 and the lifting of lockdown in the jurisdictional area.

The Supreme Court of India has issued directions to address the challenges faced by litigants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The order dated 08.03.2021 extended the period of limitation prescribed under general law or special laws, with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders. The court believes that the order dated 15.03.2020 has served its purpose and should come to an end.

The court has also excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021, allowing the balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020 to become available with effect from 15.03.2021. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will also be excluded from computing periods prescribed under various laws. The government is also required to amend guidelines for containment zones, allowing for medical emergencies, essential goods and services, time-bound applications, and educational and job-related requirements.

The Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 will be excluded from computing the period prescribed under various laws, including the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This decision has a significant impact on the current controversy, as it excludes the period for computing outer limits within which the court or tribunal can condone delay.

The Court in Prakash Corporates (supra) also noted that the order of 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges were not available for the Bench which decided Sagufa Ahmed’s case. The outer limit within which the court or tribunal can condone delay is 120 days from the date of summons.

JUDGEMENT:

As has been set out hereinabove, summons was served on 07.02.2020, but the 30 days period expired on 08.03.2020 and the outer limit of 120 days expired on 06.06.2020. The applicants filed for written statements and extension of time on 20.01.2021, and the High Court’s judgment needs to be set aside. The principle underlying the court’s orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, and 23.09.2021, in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation would benefit the applicants-defendants.

The Appeals are allowed, and the written statements filed on 20.01.2021, are directed to be taken on record. The suit will proceed with the appeals, and the appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. VERSUS IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

 

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

 

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0
sc of india21

SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION – 302 OF IPC.

Blog, high court, Legal procedure, Lucknow High Court, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: NANHE  VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791OF 2023.

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 21, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA & JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 30.05.2007, an incident occurred in a market area, resulting in injuries and a death of Mahendra Hussain, son of Mohd. Ali. Two cases were registered against the accused, Nanhe, under Section 304 and 308 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both cases were tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act,1989. The trial court found Nanhe guilty of Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-.

The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the accused in criminal appeal No.4474 of 2010, which was filed by the accused in both cases. The accused has appealed against the High Court’s judgment and order through this appeal, highlighting the single appeal filed by the accused against his conviction.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the said offence is liable to be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under second part of section 304 IPC.
  • Whether the offence committed in the state of intoxication can be taken into consideration for convicting the same .
  • Whether the known level of intoxication can be determined factor in convicting the accused.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

INDIAN PENAL CODE

  • Section-86: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

  • Section-301: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended. – If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

  • Section-302: Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

  • Section-304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
  • Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

The learned counsel for appellant argues that the deceased’s death was accidental, not intentional. The appellant was heavily intoxicated and unaware of his actions. The incident occurred on 30.05.2007 when Mohd. Ali, his son, and his son, Saddam Hussain, argued. Sant Ram, Mahendra’s brother, intervened and asked Nanhe to leave. Nanhe fired a shot, piercing Mahendra’s neck and killing him. Saddam was taken to a hospital where he died.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

The counsel for the respondent argues that the action of the Nanhe (appellant) which inflicted to the death of Saddam Hussain was intentional and not accidental. The appellant was  arguing with Mahendra and then, the Sant Ram intervened and asked appellant to leave the place. After walking 15 -20 steps he moved back and fired with his country made pistol   in the state of intoxication, which shows the clear intention of the appellant to murder.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

Saddam Hussain died from a firearm shot received in his neck, fired from a country-made pistol owned by appellant Nanhe. The weapon and cartridges were recovered from him. The trial court and High Court concluded that Nanhe is guilty of an offense under Section 302 IPC. The question is whether the offense can be reduced to culpable homicide, not murder, under Section 304 IPC, given Nanhe’s intention to settle his score with Mahendra and the impact of his intoxication at the time of the incident.

The appellant argued that he had no intention to kill the deceased and was accidentally killed, despite firing a shot on Mahendra, a person he had a quarrel with earlier. Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is relevant, as it embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The court in Shankarlal Kacharabhai & Ors Vs. The State Of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260 stated that to invoke Section 301, an offender must not have any intention to cause the death or knowledge of the potential harm.

In Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 51, the court ruled that the High Court’s decision to set aside a Special Judge’s order based on the fact that the shooting was not aimed at the victim and he was accidently injured was in ignorance of Section 301 IPC. In Jagpal Singh Vs. State Of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 982, the court ruled that the accused was punishable under Section 302 IPC (simplicitor) under the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive’ under Section 301 IPC.

The appellant is found guilty of culpable homicide under section 302 IPC, based on the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The offence was committed by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of their act. The court ruled in Basdev Vs. State Of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, that if no evidence shows an accused’s incapacity to understand their actions due to intoxication, the killing would be an offence of murder.

The incident occurred due to a quarrel between the appellant and Mahendra, with which Saddam was killed. Hussain had no connection to the firing, but Saddam was killed by accident. The appellant may have accidentally killed Saddam intoxicated, but there is no evidence to prove he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was dangerous enough to cause death. Therefore, Section 86 IPC would not apply and Hussain would not be entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

JUDGEMENT:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in confirming the conviction and punishing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant can apply for remission under the current state policy, which the State is expected to consider on its merits promptly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: NANHE VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

Supreme Court Orders Bench Assignment for Bhosale’s Bail Plea

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

The Supreme Court of India has taken action in the case of Avinash Bhosale, a prominent Pune-based builder caught in a web of financial allegations. On Tuesday, the apex court directed the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign a specific bench to hear Bhosale’s bail application in a money laundering case. This case is intricately linked to the high-profile Yes Bank-DHFL fraud scandal that has shaken India’s financial sector.

The decision came from a vacation bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Manoj Misra and including Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. The court’s intervention was prompted by the repeated adjournments of Bhosale’s bail plea in the Bombay High Court. These delays were attributed to time constraints and the frequent unavailability of opposing counsel, despite the case being listed multiple times as a priority matter.

Bhosale, the founder of the ABIL Group, finds himself at the center of a complex financial investigation. He was initially arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in May 2022, with the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following suit shortly after. The allegations against him are severe, involving the routing of ill-gotten money through his Maharashtra-based real estate companies. The ED’s probe has revealed that Bhosale allegedly received approximately Rs 68.82 crore from DHFL in 2018 under the guise of consultancy charges. However, investigators claim that no actual consultancy services were provided, and the funds were merely proceeds of crime.

The case has seen significant financial implications, with the ED attaching assets worth Rs 164 crore belonging to Bhosale under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. This action underscores the gravity of the allegations and the scale of the suspected financial misconduct.

It’s worth noting that while the Supreme Court has intervened to ensure the assignment of a bench for Bhosale’s bail hearing, it refrained from issuing any directives for an expedited disposal of the plea. The court has left it to Bhosale to approach the assigned bench of the Bombay High Court with any requests for urgent consideration.

This case is part of a larger crackdown on financial irregularities in India’s banking and real estate sectors. The Yes Bank-DHFL fraud case, in particular, has attracted significant attention due to its scale and the involvement of high-profile individuals and institutions. As the legal proceedings unfold, they are likely to have far-reaching implications for corporate governance and financial regulation in India.

 

Written by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

1 2 3 … 26