2024 (12) TMI 291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 01.07.2021. 2. It is a case where a factory comprising of land, building, structures, plant, machinery, etc. belonging to M/s Guru Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. has been attached. The property aforesaid is on lease to M/s Jarandeshwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and mortgaged to Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. This appeal has been preferred by all the parties named above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal involves institutions within the co-operative banking and credit system in Maharashtra which functions with three-tier system in which first level is Primary Agricultural Credit Co- operative Societies, then comes District Central Co-operative Banks and lastly Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank. The Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies mobilize their funds to their members who are agriculturist and deploy it as crop loans to other needy members. In case, deposits are found to be insufficient to meet loan requirements of farmers, they rely on the federal structure at the District Level and finally at the State Leve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on different issues and otherwise pursuant to the order passed by the Bombay High Court dated 22.08.2019 in PIL No.6/2015. The PIL was not in reference to the issues taken up by the respondents to attach the property, rather for that the matter was decided finally in favour of the appellants by the Bombay High Court. In the FIR registered on 26.08.2019 in pursuance to the order of the High Court in PIL, the allegation was that though the notice for sale of the property was issued in the year 2008 but sale was conducted in the year 2010 i.e. after a period of two years. It is with a further allegation that sale certificate was issued for a sum of Rs. 65.65 crores while the sale deed was registered for Rs. 18 crores only. Both the grounds referred to above are not basis for the Provisional Attachment order and its confirmation. Rather, it is based on the allegations levelled in the complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC and cognizance of offence thereupon. It is without realizing that the order of learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the Bombay High Court. The respondents could not have attached the property in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....acts on record shows that initially a complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and in pursuance to it, the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 14.10.2011 for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 409,420,468,471 and 34 IPC. It is, however, a fact that the allegation levelled in the said FIR was pertaining to the auction of the factory and sale it to M/s Guru Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. in an illegal manner. The allegation was for undervaluation of the property for auction. However, the allegations aforesaid were tested by the Additional Sessions Judge followed by the judgment of Bombay High Court holding allegations to be erroneous. It would be gainful to refer and quote the relevant para of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which would otherwise deal with the main issue raised by the appellants. The relevant paras of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.08.2012 are quoted hereunder: "12. It is alleged by the complainant that the property is worth Rs. 103 crores, however, the applicants in furtherance of their common intention prepared the forged valuatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld and in the said meeting the parties agreed that the third bid would be opened in the presence of the directors of the applicant No.1-bank. Moreover, the rest of the bidders have not raised any objection that the sale process conducted by the authorized officer is not transparent [...] I have no hesitation to hold that there is no prima facie evidence on record that the sale process of the property conducted by the authorized officer and the applicants is not transparent. 16. It is also alleged by the complainant that the authorized officer and the applicants had not taken into consideration the financial capacity of the purchaser before accepting the third bid of the purchaser. The complainant produced the balance-sheet of the purchaser Guru commodities Pvt. Ltd. for the year 2010, which shows that the total turnover of Guru Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 63,60,607/-. This report is filed by the complainant as per list Exh. 53. But it is pertinent to note that the evidence on record prima facie goes to show that the purchaser Guru Commodities Pvt. Ltd. paid the entire amount of sale price. So only because the balance-sheet of the purchaser Guru Commodities Pvt. Ltd. for the y....