Bombay High Court
Navodaya Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Dep. ... on 7 December, 2020
Author: Swapna Joshi
Bench: Swapna Joshi
1 30.CRI.WP. NO. 63-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 63 OF 2020
Navodaya Urban Co-operative Bank
Ltd. Through Its Board of
Liquidators,
Opp Bala Nx, Near Paijar,
Sakkardara, Nagpur. .. PETITIONER
...Versus...
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through
Its Secretary, Department of Home,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Police Inspector, Crime Branch,
Nagpur City, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, APP for the Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
DATED : 07th December, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties, present matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself.
2. Heard, Shri S.S. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, the learned APP for the ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 18:57:44 ::: 2 30.CRI.WP. NO. 63-2020 JUDGMENT.odt respondents.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & District Judge-12, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1569/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for defreezing the various bank accounts was rejected.
4. The financial misappropriation was found by the respondents in the Navodaya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur to the extent of Rs.38,75,20,641/-, and therefore, the proceedings under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter to be referred as "the MPID Act" for short) were initiated and the offence was registered vide Crime No. 181/2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the MPID Act and under Sections 65 and 65-B of the Information Technology Act, 2001.
5. The respondent No.1, while exercising the powers under Section 110-A (1) (ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, established a Board of Liquidators and the liquidator was appointed to commence the proceedings of winding up of the affairs of Navodaya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nagpur. ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 18:57:44 ::: 3 30.CRI.WP. NO. 63-2020 JUDGMENT.odt
6. The petitioner-liquidator took over the charge of the said bank, however, it was unable to run its day-to-day business such as salary of the staff, proceedings to conduct recovery from borrowers and to operate the Bank accounts as those Bank accounts were frozen by the respondent No.2.
7. The petitioner then made an application to the respondent No.2 on 24.05.2019 for defreezing the accounts of the Navodaya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur lying in various Banks, for operating the Bank accounts for meeting its day-to-day expenses. The respondent No. 2, however, rejected the said application. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order before the Special Court under the MPID Act. The learned Special Judge after hearing both the sides, rejected the said application filed by the petitioner and refused to defreeze the accounts vide order dated 30.09.2019 which is impugned in the present petition.
8. The learned Advocate Mr. Ghate vociferously argued that the Petitioner is unable to even pay the salary of the staff, to pay the electricity bills of the bank premises etc. as the Petitioner is unable to operate the bank accounts.
9. Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, the learned APP made a specific statement that defreezing all the accounts of Navodaya Urban ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 18:57:44 ::: 4 30.CRI.WP. NO. 63-2020 JUDGMENT.odt Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nagpur, may be allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner-liquidator should submit the monthly report before the respondent No.2.
10. In view of the fact that there is no dispute about the statutory obligations conferred upon the petitioner to be discharged, and as the respondent No. 1 agrees to allow the petitioner to operate Bank accounts on imposing certain conditions, the following order is passed.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur dated 30.09.2019 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1569/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is allowed to operate the Bank accounts mentioned in Annexure-C. However, the petitioner should submit the report in respect of the expenses mentioned in Annexure-H and the expenses which would be incurred by the Bank in future. The monthly report of the said expenses be furnished before the respondent No.2 in every first week of the month.
(iv) The petitioner is restrained from using the Bank accounts for any other expenses except the expenses ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 18:57:44 ::: 5 30.CRI.WP. NO. 63-2020 JUDGMENT.odt stated in the list of the expenses Annexure-H.
11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) S.D.Bhimte ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 18:57:44 :::