Sole judge permitted writ petition and quashed criminal prosecution against bank directors held not liable for vicarious liability in branch violation.
Petition allowed; prosecution under section 313(1)(b)(c) r/w section 471 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 quashed.
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.
vrd 1 WP688/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.688 OF 2012
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. And others ...Petitioners v/s
State of Maharashtra and anr.
...Respondents
Mr S. Marwari with Mr F. Sayyed and Mr V. Singh i/b M/s Manilal Kher Ambalal and Co. for Petitioners. Mrs A.A. Mane, APP for State. Mr Sandeep Patil for B.M.C.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J.
DATED : 1ST NOVEMBER 2012.
P.C. :-
Bank Ltd. And its Managing Director and others are
prosecuted by the Municipal Corporation under section 313(1)(b)(c) r/w section 471 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888.
there was infraction of putting up a board in
weather frame across the footpath, noticed on
vrd 2 WP688/12
inspection on 14th September 2011 at Shop No.3A,
Kismat Building, 31 Nathalal Parekh Marg, Wood House, Sasoon Dock, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005, the
petitioners' Managing Director or the Chairman could
not have been prosecuted. At the most, the prosecution could be as against the Manager of the particular Branch. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have no role in the act.
based on Shops and Establishment Licence, the
prosecution was against the Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors is initiated.
could not be prosecution against the Chairman or Managing Director or Director for the offence branding them to face vicarious liability. No
averment made in the complaint to show complicity of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 with actual laying of the board. Again the conduct of the petitioners through
its officers also illustrate, they were
vrd 3 WP688/12
communicating with Municipal Corporation to pay the
amount and to accord licence as per Municipal Rules,
still the prosecution is initiated. The weather frame is removed by said Branch. The learned
counsel for Corporation submits that requisite documents are not tendered by the petitioner Bank. The petitioner No.1 had initiated steps to secure
license in respect of branch premises, but instead of providing details, prosecution is initiated. At the most, it could be a statutory violation of the Bank, but could not be against Directors who had no role in fixing the weather frame board for its Branch.
portion of a building abutting on a street, being against the Chairman, Managing Director or other Directors is not maintainable. Prosecution is
vrd 4 WP688/12
quashed. Petition is allowed.
(K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether prosecution against the Chairman, Managing Director or other Directors for an offence committed by a branch regarding violation of municipal rules regarding board projection is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. And others
State of Maharashtra and anr.
K.U. Chandiwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
