Chattisgarh High Court
Esteem Industries Inc vs State Bank Of India on 18 February, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 19 of 2022
1. Esteem Industries Inc. Through Its Partner Mahendra Tandon S/o Late Shri
Tirath Ram Tandon, A/a 74 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 2EF, Epip,
Phase-1 Jharmajri Baddi Himachal Pradesh Pin 174103
2. Mahendra Tandon S/o Late Shri Tirath Ram Tandon, Aged About 74 Years
Partner, Esteem Industries Inc. Having Its Registered Office At 2EF, Epip,
Phase-1 Jharmajri Baddi Himachal Pradesh Pin 174103
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman, 5th Floor, Madame Came Road,
Mumbai (M.H.) Pin - 400021
2. State Bank Of India Through Its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Premises, Byron
Bazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin- 492001
3. State Bank Of India Through Chief Manager, Branch Ganjpara, District Durg
(C.G.)
4. Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Director Head Office- Plot No. 5-B,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,new Delhi
5. Anti Corruption Bureau, Through Superintendent Of Police, Village-
Dharampura, Vip Road, Near Pts Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 490009
6. Superintendent Of Police Office Of Superintendent, District Durg (C.G.)
7. Station House Officer, Police Station Ganjpara, Distirct Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. With Shri Arijit
Tiwari and Shri Akash Shrivastava,
Advocates
For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Respondent No.4/UOI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG
For Respondents/State : Shri Ayaz Naved, GA
2
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOUTAM BHADURI
ORDER
18/02/2022 Heard.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were in the business with the State Government for supply of medical instrument and they were having an account with the SBI. Subsequently, it came to knowledge that a fake account was opened in the name of the petitioner firm and the amount which was due to the original partners and the firm were withdrawn for which several letters were issued by the petitioner, however, the Bank did not co- operate.
2. Perusal of the document attached with the petition would show that the report to the police has not yet been made. Under the circumstances, even if the Bank has not co-operated, the petitioner may approach to the concerned SHO with an appropriate report and in such case, the concerned SHO shall register the FIR and if the cognizable offence is reported then shall take it to its logical end.
3. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu