Bombay High Court
M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 March, 2019
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, A. M. Badar
4-APPEAL-494-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.494 OF 2018
M/S.HDFC BANK LTD. )...APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. )...RESPONDENTS
Mr. Chetan Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Gharat, Special PP a/w. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : INDRAJIT MAHANTY &
A. M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 26th MARCH 2019 P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present appeal has came up before this Court by M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. seeking to challenge an order passed by the learned Special Judge, MPID Act & Additional Sessions Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.198 of 2015. By this order dated 13.04.2016, the prayer made by the appellant bank for release of the outstanding of the appellant bank from the sale proceeds of agp 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2019 22:47:01 ::: 4-APPEAL-494-2018.doc the vehicle financed have came to be rejected.
3. The undisputed facts of this case are that accused/Susan Charterjee is facing a prosecution under the MPID Act and the EOW Unit III, Mumbai had attached Toyota Fortuner BOI-2 WD bearing registration No.MH-46-Z-4080. It appears that by Order dated 21.04.2015 in Miscellaneous Application No.108 of 2015 the learned Designated Court had permitted the appellant bank to sell the said vehicle and to keep the sale proceed in the fixed deposit till further orders.
4. Subsequent to the compliance with the aforesaid directions and sale of the vehicle, the appellant bank had kept the sale amount of Rs.21,21,000/- in a fixed deposit with it. In this context, the Miscellaneous Application No.198 of 2015 was filed by the appellant bank seeking release of amount of Rs.15,73,702.43 which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 13.04.2016.
5. It is not disputed that the vehicle was financed by the appellant bank and was also mortgaged to the appellant/accused agp 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2019 22:47:01 ::: 4-APPEAL-494-2018.doc bank as a primary security for the outstanding dues of the Lonee (accused). Consequently, the appellant bank has claimed for payment of its outstanding.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently supported the impugned order, but in his answer to a query from the Court, as to what extent the property of accused can be attached, he fairly submitted that it is to be extent of the interest held by the accused and the attachment by the EOW could only extend to the interest that the accused possessed in the asset. Admittedly, in this case, the vehicle has been purchased by the accused by taking loan from the appellant bank and in terms of the statement given by the bank at Page No.46 of additional document filed in Court today as on 19.05.2015, the outstanding was Rs.1,393,856.74 apart from the default in payment of installments amounting to Rs.87,862/-. In other words, the petitioner bank dues (as on 19.05.2015), was a total sum of Rs.14,81,718.74. Although, the bank has raised various other claims including the late payment charges and pre-payment charges etc., the learned counsel for the Bank restricted its claim agp 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2019 22:47:01 ::: 4-APPEAL-494-2018.doc to the aforesaid amount.
7. We are of the considered view that the various other charges in the present circumstance ought not to have been cleared since the EOW, Unit III, Mumbai had already attached the movable asset of the accused. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.14,81,718.74 may be released in favour of the appellant bank from fixed deposit kept by it and the balance amount alongwith the accrued interest thereon be made in a fixed deposit with the appellant bank and the original receipt be handed over to the Senior Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit No.3, Mumbai and the said amount shall be informed to the MPID Court for being dealt with in accordance with law.
8. The appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated hereinabove.
9. Parties are directed to comply with the order within a period of fifteen days from today.
(A. M. BADAR, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.) agp 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2019 22:47:01 :::