Allowed

Subhash B. Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2017APEAL/252/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an order under the MPID Act, the High Court held that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to be heard regarding the attachment of specific property. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellant was allowed to file proceedings for release of the attached property.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 17.1.2017 and 17.1.2005 in relation to property at Sr. No. 2 were set aside. Appellant's liberty to file proceedings for release of property granted.

Subhash B. Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8. cri apeal 252-17.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2017

¶5

Subhash B. Sanas

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Appearances

¶11

Mr. Karan Mehta a/w
Mr. Prashant Patil i/by
Mr. Sudhakar Surve	Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. H.J. Dedhia	APP for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &

¶13

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : APRIL 20, 2017.

¶15

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

¶16

Heard the leaned counsel for the appellant and learned

¶17

APP for EOW as well as Competent Authority.

¶18

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated

¶19

17.1.2017 passed by the Designated Court under the MPID.

¶20

Act [Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In

¶21

Financial Establishment) Act, 2005 ] in Misc. Application No.

¶22

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5

¶23

8. cri apeal 252-17.doc

¶24

250 of 2005 in MPID Special Case No. 39 of 2000. The

¶25

appellant was the non-applicant in the said application. In the said application, the competent authority has sought clarification regarding disposal of property at Sr. No. 2 of the notification published by the Government under Section 4 of

¶26

the MPID Act. The description of the property is as under:-

¶27

Flat No. 302, Beverly Hills Building No. 1, Lulla Nagar, Pune admeasuring 1622 sq.ft.

¶28

In the said application, the appellant contended that

¶29

the property was owned by him in pursuance to an unregistered agreement to sell dated 27.1.1997 with

¶30

accused Rajiv John and Rosslyn John. The appellant is the developer and promoter and he had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 14,59,800/-. As per the competent authority, only Rs. Seven Lacs were paid by the accused to the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the amount was paid by the accused persons to the appellant from the amount which was deposited by the depositors.

¶31

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5

¶32

8. cri apeal 252-17.doc

¶33

The records relating to this case show that the State Government attached in all seven immovable properties and nine movable properties mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the MPID Act. The order of the Government dated 12.2.2004 under Section 4 of the MPID Act bearing No. CH-10/2001 / 574/POL -12 is also notified in the official gazette dated 18.3.2004. The trial Court by order dated 17.1.2005 had already passed the order under Section 7 of the MPID Act and thereby, the order of attachment of the properties by the Government under Section 4 of the MPID Act was made absolute in respect of the attached and notified properties including the property which is the subject matter of this appeal.

¶34

Before the trial Court, the appellant had contended that

¶35

he was not aware of the order passed by the Government or the order passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of

¶36

the MPID Act, hence, the said property may be released from

¶37

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5

¶38

8. cri apeal 252-17.doc

¶39

attachment. The trial Court observed that the contention of the non-applicant that he was not aware of the order passed

¶40

by the Government or the order passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of the MPID Act may be correct. However, the Designated Court observed that there is no provision under the MPID Act of review of the order passed

¶41

by the same Designated Court and the only recourse available to the non-applicant (appellant herein) is to file an Appeal under Section 11 of the MPID Act. In view of these facts, the Designated Court observed that neither the contention of the competent authority for soliciting further directions nor the contention of non-applicant of release of the property from attachment can be considered by the Designated Court. Observing thus, the Designated Court under the MPID Act rejected the application.

¶42

Thus, it is seen that the Designated Court under the

¶43

MPID Act did not deny that the present appellant was not

¶44

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5

¶45

8. cri apeal 252-17.doc

¶46

aware of the order passed by the Government or the order

¶47

passed by the Designated Court dated 17.1.2005 and that no notices were issued to him under Section 7 of the MPID Act. We are of the opinion that one chance ought to be given to

¶48

the appellant to be heard before the orders are passed in

¶49

relation to the property at Sr. No. 2. In view of the above

¶50

facts, we set aside the order dated 17.1.2017 as well as

¶51

order dated 17.1.2005 in relation to property at Sr. No. 2 of the notification. The appellant is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Designated Court for release of the said property from attachment.

¶52

The Designated Court after hearing the present

¶53

appellant as well as the necessary parties to decide the

¶54

same in accordance with law.

¶55

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶56

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

¶57

jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5

Subhash B. Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash B. Sanas v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shri. Vijaykumar Pandharirao Narwade Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Baban Datta Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aba Umrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay G Ubale, Commissioner, Audit-I, Vadodara Vs Dr. Hasmukh Adhia, Secretary (Revenue) and Anr.

Zakir Ahmed Sakir Ahmed Khan Vs the Superintendent of Prisons and Ors.