Samruddh Minerals And Metals Pvt. Ltd Represented By Director. Mr. Vinay Rohidas Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Public Prosecutor

(1) 933crwp644.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.644/2025 Samruddha Minerals and Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM :

ANIL L. PANSARE AND SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, JJ.

DATE :

SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 On 26.08.2025, following order was passed:

"Heard.

Leave to add (1) Manager, HDFC Bank, Mumbai and (2) Manager, SBI Bank, Mumbai is granted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time to file reply.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is extreme urgency because the petitioners' business has been halted. The reason being, current accounts and private accounts belonging to the petitioners have been debit freezed in a crime registered in the year 2023 vide Crime No. 498/2023 against Kalkaam Real Infra (India) Limited (for short 'Kalkaam Company') and all the Directors of the company. The argument is that none of the petitioners has any nexus with Kalkaam Company except entering into one commercial agreement in the year 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the notice issued by the Investigating Officer of the Economic Offences Wing, Chandrapur under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Sections 4 and 8 of MPID Act stating therein that FIR vide Crime No. 498/2023 under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the MPID Act is registered against Kalkaam Company and that notice is issued to the Manager, HDFC Bank, Chandrapur wherein the Investigating Officer has

(2) 933crwp644.25 directed the bank to debit freeze the accounts of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, he makes a request to permit the petitioners to operate two accounts.

Considering the fact that petitioners have been not heard and on the strength of the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel that petitioners have no nexus with Kalkaam Company, the purpose will be served, if by way of interim arrangement, permission is granted to operate two accounts out of the several accounts debit freezed by the Investigating Officer. Upon this, the counsel for the petitioners submits that Account No.00801000008146 maintained by HDFC Bank, Sandoz House, Worli, Mumbai Branch and Account No. 06371600000456 maintained by HDFC Bank, Dhule Branch may be defreezed. The aforesaid accounts stand defreezed, until further order. The transactions, that will be made, shall be, however, subject to outcome of this petition.

List in the week commencing from 15-9-2025."

2.

As could be seen, leave to add Manager, HDFC Bank, Mumbai and Manager, SBI Bank, Mumbai was granted. The amendment is not carried out till today. That apart, interim relief was granted to the petitioners. The petitioners, however, did not file compliance of Practice Note No.14, more particularly clause (5) thereof, which reads thus: "5.

In the matters in which the Court has granted ad-interim/interim reliefs, the Advocates must give written notice to the other side on the next day of granting of ad-interim/interim reliefs by fax/Speed Post/Telegram/Registered Post A. D. specifically informing the returnable date as fixed by the Hon'ble Court and file affidavit of service to that effect with the Additional Registrar (Judl. I) well in advance atleast prior to 4 days of the date fixed. If such notice is not given and affidavit of service is not filed, the matters will be dismissed for default."

(3) 933crwp644.25 3.

Thus, the petitioners were under obligation to inform the respondents of next date saying that interim relief has been granted. The petitioners were further duty-bound to file affidavit of service, at least four days prior to listing the petition. The same has been not done. Registry, therefore, ought to have listed the petition for dismissal in terms of clause (5) of Practice Note No. 14. Registry failed to do so. Registrar (Judicial) shall take note of the lapse.

4.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that inadvertently he failed to submit the compliance. He assured that necessary steps will be taken in three working days.

5.

On the strength of such an assurance, we give yet another opportunity to the petitioners. Amendment shall be carried out within 24 hours, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. So far as compliance of Practice Note No.14 is concerned, the same shall be done before the next date.

6.

List in the week commencing from 29.09.2025.

(Siddheshwar S. Thombre,J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.) Kahale