Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Satish P. Bhatt vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Vikram Nath, Rajesh Bindal
SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7433/2019
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7433/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-07-2019
in CRLAP No. 244/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay)
SATISH P. BHATT Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
( IA No. 124556/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 146215/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION) Date : 10-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Nilanjani Tandon, Adv. Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv. Ms. Richa Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv.Signature Not Verified Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Adv. Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN
Mr. Vishal, Adv.
Ms. Madhulika, Adv.
Date: 2023.10.13 15:59:31 IST Reason:1 SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7433/2019
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As per the settlement agreement dated 03.07.2018, the complainant respondent no.2 had agreed to accept a sum of Rs.4,63,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.73,50,000/- had already been paid and the remaining amount to be paid was Rs.3,90,00,000/- in due instalments. The High Court in its order dated 03.07.2018 i.e. on the same date as per the settlement accepted the same and suspended the sentence awarded to the revisionist therein i.e. Satish P. Bhatt (the Petitioner) and Vishwanath R. Nayak (the Intervenor).
It would be relevant to mention here that as per paragraph 8 of the settlement, the petitioner and the intervenor had agreed to pay the amount due equally and in the event of default by either of the two, they will be held liable and will be prosecuted as per the law.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the settlement/undertaking accepted by the High Court vide order dated 3rd July, 2018, he has already deposited Rs.1.95 crores being 50% of the balance amount i.e. Rs.3.90 crores. He further submits that the remaining 50% of the settled 2 SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7433/2019 amount is to be paid by the Intervenor who is represented by learned advocate Mr. Manoj Mishra.
Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate, submits that his client has paid Rs. 1.85 crores. However, he has not been able to show the proof of the deposit having been made after the settlement was accepted by the High Court. Apparently, he is referring to Rs.73.50 lakhs paid prior to the settlement which is incorporated in the order of the High Court as well as the settlement. According to the complainant respondent no.2, the intervenor has paid much less.
It is already clarified in the order and the settlement/undertaking that the previous amount is not to be adjusted. The payment to be made is for an amount of Rs.3.90 crores which has to be paid after the settlement was accepted.
Let the intervenor Vishwanath Ramkrishna Nayak remain present before this Court on the next date. It would be open for the intervenor to honour the settlement and file an affidavit to that effect on the said date, failing which this Court will be compelled to take appropriate coercive measures against him.
3 SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7433/2019
In the meanwhile, the intervenor may also file additional affidavit, as prayed for, by the learned advocate Mr. Mishra representing him.
It is further provided that the petitioner will also remain present on the next date of listing i.e. 7th November, 2023.
List on 07.11.2023.
Both petitioner and the intervenor to remain present.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 4