L and T Finance Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court dismissed the plea of a finance company challenging lower orders that denied its claim to money deposited by an embezzled employee. It held no provision entitles a complainant to such money merely as a bail condition.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 20
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2143 of 2017
Petitioner :- L and T Finance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh,Pranjal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chauhan, counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate IX, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.41245 of 2016 as well as the order dated 4.2.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.74 of 2017.
The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, are as under:
The petitioner-company is a Finance Company and has an office at Kanpur Nagar. One Mohit Vishwakarma was working as an employee of the petitioner's company and is alleged to have embezzled certain amounts as such a first information report was lodged on
13.1.2016 against Mohit Vishwakarma vide Case Crime No.18 of 2016 under Sections 406/409 IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, Kanpur Nagar.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a complainant has the right to claim money deposited by an accused as a mere condition for grant of bail.
Whether the lower courts committed any infirmity in dismissing the petitioner's application for recovery of such deposited amount.
Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned orders is meritorious in law.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
L and T Finance Co. Ltd.
- respondent
State Of U.P.
Coram
Pankaj Bhatia
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- A227/2143/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court