9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. 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 attachment order has been passed in reference to the FIR registered in the year 2019 pursuant to the order of the Bombay High Court in a PIL. The allegation in the PIL was of general nature regarding working of the co-operative societies at different levels. The FIR was registered in pursuance to the order of the High Court to deal with the irregularities in the functions of the co-operative societies in lending and borrowing the loans - the issue raised in the Provisional Attachment Order to make out a case is on the basis of facts unconnected to FIR registered in the year 2019. It was totally on different issues. In view of the above, the reasons for the police to give closure report though it is pending consideration before the competent court. The perusal of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hwar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. The properties have been attached by the respondents mainly on the ground that in the year 2010, the Board of Directors of Maharashtra State Co- operative Bank sold the attached property by invoking SARFAESI, 2002 by undervaluing the reserve price. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 45 crores whereas as per the report, the value of the property was more than Rs. 100 crores. 5. Further allegation was that the tender process for sale of the property was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. M/s Guru Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. was not possessing the requisite financial capacity to participate in the tender and paid the bid amount of Rs. 65.75 crores through funds arranged from proxy parties. 6. It is further submitted that in reference to the aforesaid allegations, a criminal complaint bearing R.C. No. 72/2011 was filed under Section 200 Cr.PC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon, who vide its order dated 14.10.2011 took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara by maintaining a Revision Petition. The Revision Petition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by the Bombay High Court in reference to that, it could not have taken for passing Provisional Attachment Order. 8. It is with a further statement that the value of the property sold in the auction was Rs. 65.65 crores which includes the land, building, plant, machinery, vehicles and other articles while the sale deed was registered only for the land for a sum of Rs. 18 Crores. The allegation was made without realizing that the amount of auction was paid by the appellants and taking aforesaid into consideration, a closure report was given by the police in pursuance to the allegations given in the FIR registered in the year 2019. 9. In any case, when the allegations referred in the Provisional Attachment Order, was subject matter of challenge in the Revision Petition before the Additional Sessions Judge followed by the order of Bombay High Court quashing the proceedings pursuant to the FIR in the year 2011. The same allegations already quashed could not have been taken basis for Provisional Attachment Order. It is after holding that there was no criminality in the auction of the property, rather the complainant had given the bid only of Rs. 26.50 Crores as against the bid of M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant itself offered the price of Rs. 18 cores and later on 26.50 crores. The minutes of the meeting of the directors of the applicant No.1-bank filed on record as per Exh. B page 64 clearly goes to show that the complainant offered the purchase price of the property at Rs. 18 crores and that offer is rejected by the directors of the applicant No.-1 bank. The letter dated 17.5.2010 of the Chairman and MD of the complainant which is filed on record as per Exh.B page 65 prima facie goes to show that later on the complainant offered the purchase price of Rs. 26.50 crores. Two valuation reports of the property of the complainant are brought on record by the applicants which prima facie goes to show that the authorized government valuer valued the property. The complainant produced the valuation report of the property prepared by Government valuer Shri Bhosale, who valued the property at Rs. 103,31,600/-. However, when the complainant itself offered price of property at Rs. 26 crores and the government valuer submitted the report that the valuation of the property is Rs. 34 crores and as per the Government Valuer Shri. Tare which is filed as per Exh. B page 186 and the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no prima facie evidence on record that the authorized officer and the applicants have committed any illegal act. 13. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in Crl. Writ Petition Nos. 3657,3563/2012 by the order dated 10.04.2013. Thus, there was no reason for the respondents to subscribe the same allegations for passing the impugned Provisional Attachment Order. 14. It is a case where the allegation referred in the Provisional Attachment Order no more exists after the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 10.04.2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 3657 and 3563 of 2011. The respondents had no authority to reopen the issue settled by the Bombay High Court by upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. 15. The attachment order has been passed in reference to the FIR registered in the year 2019 pursuant to the order of the Bombay High Court in a PIL. The allegation in the PIL was of general nature regarding working of the co-operative societies at different levels. The FIR was registered in pursuance to the order of the High Court to deal with the irregularities in the functions of the co-operative societies in lending an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
