Allowed

Ajit Padda and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Aug 2009APPLN/2802/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail after finding that the dispute arising from a joint venture business venture was predominantly civil in nature via a settlement agreement that ultimately failed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; upon arrest under sections 406, 417, 420 read with section 34 IPC, release on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with sureties.

Ajit Padda and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2802 OF 2009

¶3

Ajit Padda Ravijeet Padda, Binny Padda .... .... .... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra .... ....Respondent.

¶4

Mr.Majeed Memon, Adv. for the Applicant Mr.Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP. for the Respondent/State.

¶5

CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. 4^th August, 2009.

¶6

PC:

¶7

By the present application the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in MECR No. 01/09 registered with Malbar Hill police station under sections 406, 417, 420 read with section 34 of IPC. The complainant filed private complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in which an order under section 156(3) has been passed. Thereafter the parties resolved the dispute by entering into settlement a copy of which is placed on record as Ex.B. On p-erusal of the document of settlement which is signed by the complainant so also the applicants it is seen that the parties had agreed to enter into joint venture for the purpose of business. However as the applicants found it impossible to allot 51% of shares of M/s.Jeet Enterprises

¶8

¶9

private limited they have backed out from the agreement which was purportedly entered into between the complainant and the applicants. For the purpose of business the applicants had taken sum of Rs.1 crore by way of personal loan in the name of directors of the company whereas another sum of Rs.2 crores were taken by way of investment in the company. Thus the applicants had borrowed sum of Rs.3 crores from the complainant. It is also seen from the settlement that besides the sum of RS.3 crores some machinery as well was provided by the complainant to the applicants. Under the settlement it was agreed that the applicants would hand over three cheques in the sum of Rs.1 crore each which shall be honoured. It is then recorded that once the payment is received by the complainant he shall withdraw the complaint. It is undisputed that three cheques issued by the applicants in favour of the complainant are honoured and the complainant has received sum of Rs.3 crores. The settlement was entered into on4.5.09. After receipt of the amount and the machinery for which there are acknowledgments obtained by the applicants the complainant is stated to have backed out from the commitment of withdrawal of the complaint. When the applicants moved anticipatory bail application in mid June, 2009 same was opposed. Till then from the date of settlement there has been no protest of whatsoever nature from the complainant in regard to any non-fulfillment of the obligation by the applicants under the settlement. Now the complainant contents that certain important and material parts from the machinery are removed. Perusal of the

¶10

¶11

papers clearly reveal that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. Learned APP on instructions from the investigating officer makes a statement that no custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants Ajit Padda, Ravijeet Padda and Binny Padda or any one of them in MECR No.01/09 registered with Malbar Hill police station under sections 406, 417, 420 read with section 34 of IPC the applicants/or any of them shall be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. Applicants shall attend the Malbar Hill police station as and when so directed. The application is disposed of.

¶12

Ajit Padda and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Padda and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atta Mohammed Haji Muhammad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anwar Hassan Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atul Bhikuji Shete Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Keshavrao Jagatrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shreyas Ashok Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Baban Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra