Allowed

Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Korchi Dist. Gadchiroli

Bombay HC6 Apr 2018WP/44/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner sought defreezing of bank accounts frozen due to uncompleted contract work. The Court noted the petitioner's liability was Rs. 60,735/- and relied on a prior direction. The petition was allowed, directing banks to defreeze accounts except for Rs. 60,735/-.

What did the court decide?

The respondent directed to inform concerned banks to defreeze the petitioner's accounts except for Rs. 60,735/-.

Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar Vs State of… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 44/2018

¶4

(Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar vs. The State of Maharashtra )

¶5

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Mr. V.N.Morande, Advocate for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6^th April, 2018.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for defreezing of the accounts of the petitioner in several banks, as is stated in the Writ Petition.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that an identical issue was involved in Criminal Application (APL) No.488/2016 and this Court has, by the judgment dated 23^rd March 2017, directed the respondents to defreeze the accounts, except for the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs as the petitioner in that case had not completed the construction work to the extent of Rs.11 lakhs. It is sated that in the instant case allegedly the petitioner has not completed the work to the extent of Rs. 60,735/- and hence by defreezing the said amount, the the petitioner should be permitted to operate the rest of the bank accounts.

¶12

¶13

Mr. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents does not dispute that in a matter arising out of a similar contract, this Court had passed an order directing defreezing of the accounts excepting for an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs in that case. It is stated that the liability of the petitioner to complete the incomplete work is to the extent of Rs. 60,735/-.

¶14

Since the liability of the petitioner to complete the incomplete work is only to the extent of Rs. 60,735/-, it would not be proper on the part of the respondent to direct the Banks to defreeze the various accounts of the petitioner in several banks.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 23^rd March,2017 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 488/2016, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to immediately inform the concerned Banks to defreeze the accounts of the petitioner except one of the Banks in respect of an amount of Rs. 60,735/-.

¶16

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

sahare

Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Korchi Dist. Gadchiroli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Krushnarao Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Korchi Dist. Gadchiroli

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

Dyaneshwar S/O Pannalal Kumbhare and Another Vs the Sub Divisional Officer (Rural), Nagpur

Sagar S/O Madhav Suryawanshi Vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati Division

Balkrushna Fattuji Rakhade Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region Nagpur and Another

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs Dattatraya Gajanan Jaware and Others

Dr. Vasant Motiramji Umarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Higher and Technical Edu. Mumbai and Others

Dr. Dhananjay Gajananrao Gudadhe Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and Others