Mrs. Leena W/O Balkishan Gandhi v. State Of Mah.Thr. Pso Ps Dhantoli Nagpur Invested By Economic Offences Wing Crime Branch Nagpur
(1) 13.aba.722.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.722 OF 2021 Mrs. Leena w/o Balkishan Gandhi Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. S. Samdekar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. I. J. Damle, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM :
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 02/05/2022 Heard Mr. Samdekar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Damle, learned APP for the non-applicant/State.
2.
The applicant has already been granted interim anticipatory bail by an order dated 03.01.2022. The charge-sheet has already been filed on 11.09.2019. The applicant, is alleged to have settled his account with the Navodaya Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.,. The settlement amount was Rs.1,19,05,768/- and the settlement had took place on 03.05.2016, in which entire amount has been deposited. It is therefore, submitted that nothing was due and payable on behalf of the applicant on account of the settlement and therefore, the application needs to be allowed.
(2) 13.aba.722.2021 3.
Mr.
Damle, learned APP for non-applicant/State, opposes the application and submits, that as on 31.03.2016, the amount was due Rs.1,11,07,222/- and the one time settlement (OTS) was for Rs.1,00,22,101/- and therefore, a loss of Rs.13,10,005/- is claimed to have been caused to the bank.
4.
The settlement is not in dispute by Mr. Damle, learned APP for non-applicant/State. He submits that on account of the settlement what has been paid is an amount of Rs.1,00,22,101/- and therefore, there is a short fall of Rs.13,10,005/-.
5.
Mr. Samdekar, learned counsel for the applicant, invites my attention to page 19, the statement of account to contend that what has been paid to the bank is Rs.1.19 Crore and more, which is as under: "17.05.2019 annexure no.17:
Sr. No.
Date Amount 02.03.2013 Rs.60,000/- 30.08.2013 Rs.61,667/- 29.03,2014 Rs.16,77,000/- 01.11.2014 Rs.80,000/- 10.12.2014 Rs.5,000/- 06.
16.04.2016 Rs.5,16,666/- 07.
31.05.2016 Rs.95,05,435/- Total Rs.1,19,05,768/-
(3) 13.aba.722.2021 6.
It is thus apparent that what remains is dispute regarding entitlement of Rs.13,00,000/- and odds and the statement is that it has been paid, considering which, I do not see any reason not to allow the application.
7.
The interim order dated 03.01.2022, therefore is confirmed, the application is accordingly allowed, in terms thereof.
JUDGE Sarkate SARKATE 18:47