Bombay High Court
Edna Michael Rodrigues Thr Her Poa ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2019
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Sarang V. Kotwal
1 - APEAL. 1323-18, connected matters
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL No. 1323 OF 2018
WITH
APPEAL No. 1127 OF 2018
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1583 OF 2018
Hotel Avion Private Ltd. ... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1805 OF 2018
IN
APPEAL No. 1127 OF 2018
Vikram Vijaykumar Singh ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2053 OF 2018
IN
APPEAL No. 1127 OF 2018
Edna Michael Rodrigues ... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
***
Mr. Girish Godbole i/b Shruti Tulpule a/w Shivani Samel, for the
Appellant.
Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Advocate I/b D. S. Joshi, for Respondent in
APEAL. 1323/2018.
Mr. H. S. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
***
1 / 4
Note : This order is corrected as per order dated 21.2.2019 for
"Speaking to the Minutes" and uploaded again.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:34:08 :::
1 - APEAL. 1323-18, connected matters
CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY, &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2019 PC :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The learned counsel for the Appellant has tendered the affidavit alongwith various documents, copies whereof served on the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. The same is taken on record. The State has also filed an affidavit through Mr. Suresh Shantaram Thale, Nayab Tahsildar, office of the Sub-Divisional Officer Mumbai, Western Suburb. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
"5. I say that M/s. Arya Luster Associates deposited the bidder amount on the following dates by way of demand draft / fixed deposit scheme certificate drawn in favour of Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai Western Suburban and Competent Authority, MPID Act. The details of the same is as under.
Sr. F. D. No. Date Amount Bank
No.
1. Received as Before
an earnest Auction 4,50,00,000
money bid
2. 577466 28/09/18 10,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
3. 577741 10/10/18 4,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
4. 577742 10/10/18 4,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
5. 577775 11/10/18 3,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
6. 577948 20/10/18 1,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
2 / 4
Note : This order is corrected as per order dated 21.2.2019 for "Speaking to the Minutes" and uploaded again.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:34:08 :::
1 - APEAL. 1323-18, connected matters
7. 577940 20/10/18 1,00,00,00 Saraswat Bank
8. 574366 16/11/18 1,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
9. 574625 01/12/18 2,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
10. 37509 09/01/19 90,00,000 D. C. Bank
11. 575283 09/01/19 1,10,00,000 Saraswat Bank
12. 575346 11/01/19 4,00,00,000 Saraswat Bank
13. 575340 11/01/19 4,50,00,000 Saraswat Bank 14 575440 17/01/19 4,25,00,000 Saraswat Bank 15 575452 18/01/19 1,50,00,000 Saraswat Bank Total amount received from the Appellant Rs.46,75,00,000/-
6. I say that the above said amount is invested in terms deposit scheme for a period of 30 days and the same is being auto renewed."
2. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the said statement of the State is not accurate and certain fixed deposits of the Respondent No. 3 have been made in the name of SDO and on the basis of such transfer, payment of entire bid money is stated to have been made, in the affidavit filed by the State.
3. Learned APP appearing for the State referred some sample deposit invoice, in which deposit appears to have been made in the name of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai, Western Suburb with various addresses purportedly of various financial agencies. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the State and on 3 / 4 Note : This order is corrected as per order dated 21.2.2019 for "Speaking to the Minutes" and uploaded again.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:34:08 :::1 - APEAL. 1323-18, connected matters verification of the deposit and / or bid confirmation advice, it appears that these deposits appear to have been submitted by the Respondent No. 3.
4. The learned counsel for the Appellants raised contention that the payments shown (shown in the affidavit) made to the SDO do not reflect the actual payment made by the successful bidder (Respondent No. 3). Without prejudice to the rights and claims of both parties, we direct the SDO to encash the fixed deposits, as shown in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the State within one week and upon encashing the same, it shall be invested in a short term deposits in any nationalised bank, and file compliance affidavit within 5 days thereafter.
5. We make it abundantly clear that the aforesaid direction has been given without prejudice to the rights and claims of the either parties, and in order to protect the public interest. S.O. to 4th March, 2019.
6. Parties to act on any authenticated copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
4 / 4
Note : This order is corrected as per order dated 21.2.2019 for "Speaking to the Minutes" and uploaded again.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 07:34:08 :::