Partly allowed

Ramesh Shripati Rohokale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016WP/3605/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed notices issued by a Chartered Accountant directing petitioners to deposit loan amounts and lodge FIR. The court held that recovery and criminal prosecution lie outside the auditor's domain.

What did the court decide?

Notices impugned issued by the Chartered Accountant are quashed and set aside; liberty granted to initiate recovery or FIR via appropriate channels.

Ramesh Shripati Rohokale Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp 3605.12 & 3613.12.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3605 OF 2012

¶5

Ramesh S/o Shripati Rohokale Age: Major, occu: Agri R/o Bhalvani, Tq. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra, Co-operative Department Mantralaya, Mumabai 32 through: The Secretary

¶8

2 The Deputy Registrar, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶9

3 The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Society Ltd Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar through: The Administrator

¶10

4 M/s D.M. Baraskar & Company Chartered Accountant, The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar R/o A-8, Gurukul, Laltaki, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar Respondents WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.3613 OF 2012

¶12

1 Rajendra Sonabapu Bachkar, Age: major, occu: Agri R/o Bhalvani, Tq. Parner Dist. Ahemadnagar

¶13

2 Maruti Sonabapu Bachkar Age: major, occu: Agri R/o as above. Petitioners

¶14

wp 3605.12 & 3613.12.odt

¶15

{2}

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 The State of Maharashtra, Co-operative Department Mantralaya, Mumabai 32 through: The Secretary

¶18

2 The Deputy Registrar, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶19

3 The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Society Ltd Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar through: The Administrator

¶20

4 M/s D.M. Baraskar & Company Chartered Accountant, The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Society Limited, Ahmednagar R/o A-8, Gurukul, Laltaki, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar Respondents

¶21

Mr.A.S. Gandhi advocate for the petitioners Mr.P.S. Patil, AGP for Respondent State

¶22

Mr. Dharandale h/f Mr. R.A. Tambe, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4

¶23

¶24

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶25

Dated : 4 th JANUARY, 2016.

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶28

1 Heard.

¶29

2 Rule.

¶30

{3} wp 3605.12 & 3613.12.odt

¶31

3 With the consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶32

4 The petitioners are objecting to the Notices issued by the Chartered Accountant, who has conducted audit of the respondent bank, directing the petitioners to deposit the amount due and payable by them towards the loan and it has been further warned that, in the event of their failure, the auditor would lodge criminal prosecution against them.

¶33

5 So far as the aspect of recovery of amount is concerned, it is not within the domain of the Chartered Accountant, who has conducted the audit, to enforce recovery and it is for the bank to take appropriate steps. It would be open for respondent No.3 bank to initiate proceedings and recover the amount due and payable by the petitioners. It is informed that, recovery proceedings have already been initiated by the bank and it would be open for the bank to file appropriate recovery proceedings and enforce the recovery of the amount. So far as the initiation of criminal prosecution is concerned, it would be open for either the auditor or respondent bank or the officer of the cooperative department to take steps and lodge First Information Report and set the criminal law in motion, in the event it is found that the petitioners have committed any crime. Such liberty was also granted by this Court

¶34

wp 3605.12 & 3613.12.odt

¶35

{4}

¶36

issuing the order dated 4.5.2012.

¶37

6 In view of reasons stated above, we deem it appropriate to allow the petitions partly. Notices impugned in the petitions issued by the Chartered Accountant are quashed and set aside. As has been recorded above, so far as the recovery of amount and lodging of FIR in respect of alleged criminal acts of petitioner, it would be open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶38

7 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified as above.

¶39

8 No costs.

¶40

(A. I. S. CHEEMA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶41

vbd

Ramesh Shripati Rohokale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Shripati Rohokale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Sopan Nathrao Thorave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijaykumar Sadashiv Sonkatale Vs Chandrashekhar Shirdram Mudkanna and Others

Shubhada Ramkishan Rathor through Natural Guardian Ramkishan Babulal Rathor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankarrao Balaji Dangat Died Thru Lrs Smt Parvatibai Shankarrao Dangat and Ors. Vs Rangnath Balaji Dangat and Ors.

Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Limited Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Vishwanth Vitthalrao Gavandi (Kalburge) Died Lrs Archana Vishwanath Gavandi (Kalburge) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.