Surekha Jayant Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2024APEAL/1273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal appeals challenge attachment of properties under the MPID Act and raise whether the central BUDS Act, 2019 displaces the MPID Act after 21.02.2019. The State filed an affidavit defending co-existence of both laws. The court recorded a status-quo statement on the attached properties, sought the Advocate General's assistance on the legal issue, and re-notified the matter for direction

What did the court decide?

Status-quo maintained qua properties covered by the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 pending further hearing.

Surekha Jayant Shetty and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Digitally signed byCHAITANYA ASHOKJADHAV Date: 2024.12.1119:26:55 +0530

¶2

1/5 13-Apeal-1273-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1273 OF 2024

¶6

Surekha Jayant Shetty And Anr. .. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2024

¶9

Vanita Harish Shetty And Ors. .. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2024

¶12

Vanita Harish Shetty And Ors. .. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. .. Respondents

¶13

WITH

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5061 OF 2024

¶15

Prada Sadhu Shetty .. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: Vanita Harish Shetty And Ors. .. Appellants Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. .. Respondents

¶16

Chaitanya

¶17

2/5 13-Apeal-1273-2024.doc

¶18

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Jugal Kanani, for the Appellants in Appeal/1273/2024.

¶19

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Vikram Sutariya, Mr. Advait V. Shukla, for the Appellants in Appeal/1152/2024 and 1153/2024.

¶20

Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Ishita Kamath, Mr. Anish Pepria, for the Intervenor/Applicant in IA/5061/2024.

¶21

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.

¶22

Mr. Avish Kumar Sonune, C.A. & Dy. Collector, Bhandup and Mr. Shrikant Dhumal, API, EOW, Unit-8, Mumbai are present.

¶23

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶24

DATED : 9^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶25

P.C:-

¶26

The three Appeals listed before us, in addition to the facts involved, have also raised a specific ground in respect of the impact of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (the “BUDS Act”), a legislation of Parliament, on the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (the “MPID Act”), an enactment passed by the State Legislature, and a question of law formulated therein is with respect to the applicability of the provisions of the MPID Act, post 21.02.2019 and its impact on the initiation of the prosecutions and the subsequent actions which include the attachment of the properties under the MPID Act by the Competent Authority.

¶27

Chaitanya

¶28

3/5 13-Apeal-1273-2024.doc

¶29

On 24.10.2024 while hearing the Criminal Appeal No. 1152 of 2024 alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2024, we had clearly formulated the issue that fall for our consideration in the two Appeals, in the backdrop of the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel Mr. Ponda, on the decision of the Kerala High Court in case of P. Raveendran Pilla Vs. State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary and Ors. [WP(C)No. 18199/2020] , where the conflict in the two legislations had drawn the attention of the learned Single Judge.

¶30

We directed the State to file its Affidavit and therefore Shri. Amrut Pawar, Police Inspector, attached to EOW (Unit-8) Mumbai, has affirmed an affidavit on 07.12.2024 which is tendered before us during the course of hearing. Apart from traversing the allegations in respect of the facts involved, the officer has also dealt with the two legislations and highlighted the key differences therein.

¶31

An attempt is made to submit that since the BUDS Act is a central law with the nationwide application, which has a different purpose as could be seen from the preamble as well as provisions contained therein, an attempt is made to justify the constitutional validity of the MPID Act, by submitting that both laws can co-exist and cases under the MPID Act can continue even after BUDS Act came into force by referring to the purpose and application of both the Acts and considering its legislative impact. The Affidavit is taken on record.

¶32

In the order which we have passed on 24.10.2024

¶33

Chaitanya

¶34

4/5 13-Apeal-1273-2024.doc

¶35

in the two Appeals referred to above, we have recorded the categorical statement of the learned A.P.P. on instructions of the Competent Authority, who was present in the Court, that the status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the properties covered in the impugned order dated 10.10.2024.

¶36

The third Appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1273 of 2024 which is also listed alongwith the two Appeals, raise a similar challenge and we expect the Respondents only to respond to the factual aspects, as the legal issue that is raised in the Appeal is identical to the one which fall for consideration in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1152 of 2024 and 1153 of 2024.

¶37

As regard the interim relief claimed in this Appeal is concerned, Mr. Yagnik make a statement on instructions that considering the similarity of the issues raised in the three Appeals, status-quo shall also be maintained qua the properties in the impugned notification which the subject matter of challenge in this Appeal too.

¶38

Recording the aforesaid statement we permit the Respondents to file its Affidavit on the factual aspect, since we find that the Affidavit which is accepted by us today in the other two Appeals cover the legal issue.

¶39

Since a critical issue of law is involved, we would like to have the presence of the learned Advocate General in the said matter and Mr. Yagnik may consult him and apprise us about the date on which the learned Advocate General can

¶40

Chaitanya

¶41

13-Apeal-1273-2024.doc

¶42

make himself available.

¶43

Re-notify to 12.12.2024. To be listed under the caption ‘for Directions’.

¶44

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶45

Chaitanya

Surekha Jayant Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Jayant Shetty and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Fakir Mohd Hasham Mansoori vs the State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Laxmi Builders and Developers through Its Proprietor Ramdas Sangle vs Suresh Harishchandra Khadpe

Ilyas Ebrahim Mirza Alias Mohammed Ilyas Mirza vs Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika (Mumbai Municipal Corporation)

Sheldon Raymond Dsouza vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Remi Bubna Realtors LLP vs Ramakant Kanhaiyalal Deora

Sarojadevi Ramkumar Chaurasiya vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority