Partly allowed

Gangadhar Bhanudas Rohokale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2016WP/4827/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice from a Chartered Auditor demanding loan deposit and threatening criminal prosecution. The Court held auditors cannot enforce recovery; such action lies with the bank or relevant authorities. Impugned notice was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice issued by the Chartered Accountant was quashed and set aside. Liberty granted to respondents to initiate appropriate recovery or criminal proceedings.

Gangadhar Bhanudas Rohokale Vs the State of Mah and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp4827.12.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4827 OF 2012

¶5

Gangadhar s/o Bhanudas Rhokale age major, occ. Agril. r/o Bhalvani, Tq. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Co-operative Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶8

The Deputy Registrar, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶9

The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar Through the Administrator.

¶10

M/s D.M. Baraskar & Company Chartered Accountant, The Sampada Nagri Co-op Credit Soceity Ltd. Ahmednagar. r/o A-8, Gurukul, Laltaki Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS

¶11

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

¶12

=====

¶13

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 7^th JANUARY, 2016.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶17

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶18

wp4827.12.doc

¶19

¶20

Petitioner is objecting to the notice issued by the Chartered Accountant, who has conducted audit of the respondent bank, directing the petitioner to deposit amount due and payable by him towards the loan and it has been further warned that, in the event of his failure, the auditor would lodge criminal prosecution against him.

¶21

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 of take appropriate steps. It would be open for respondent no. 3 bank to initiate proceedings and recover the amount due and payable by petitioner. 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 cooperation department to take steps and lodge First Information Report and set the criminal law in motion, in the event it is found that the petitioner has committed any crime. Such liberty was also granted by this Court while issuing order dated 04.05.2012.

¶22

In view of reasons stated above, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition partly. Notice impugned in the petition issued by the Chartered Accountant is 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

¶23

wp4827.12.doc

¶24

¶25

of petitioner, it would be open for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the extent specified above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

¶26

costs.

¶27

( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) JUDGE

¶28

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶29

dyb

Gangadhar Bhanudas Rohokale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Bhanudas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadu Asaram Sonawane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Baby Wd/O Shankarrao Deshmukh Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Bhaurao Rama Dighe, Died. Thr. L.Rs. Dinkar Bhaurao Dighe Vs Baburao Rama Dighe, Died. Thr. L.Rs. Kesharbai Deorao Dighe and Anr.

Marathi Mission Ahmednagar Vs the Union of India New Delhi and Ors.

Pandharinath Namdeorao Shitole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dhananjay Annasaheb Choudhary Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik Div.