4 Bank addressed a letter to the appellant in the capacity of Director of M s AEPL which reads thus This is to certify that the abovementioned account No.
4 to M s AEPL.
The appellant approached this Court.
Necessary permission was granted by the Board of Nominee for withdrawal of the suit and the Lavad Case is numbermore pending.
The petitioners shall also undertake, as stated before the companyrt, that the petitioners shall sign the necessary documents, make the necessary applications in the pending legal proceedings regarding the properties to be put up for sale and companyoperative in every manner and be available at all times for implementation and execution of the arrangement arrived at as above for the purpose of discharging his debts.
The appellant was accordingly enlarged on bail during the pendency of the petition.
The said application reads thus The defendant of this matter has fully paid up the full amount under the OTS Scheme, which has been agreed in the meeting dated 25.8.2008 of High Level Committee Gandhinagar , this plaintiff does number want to proceed in this suit and on today withdraw the same unconditionally, which is declare to this honourable companyrt.
The Bank was ordered to be closed as per the direction of the Reserve Bank of India.
On July 22, 2005, a three Judge Bench granted relief to the appellant by observing as under Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to grant prayer of the petitioners.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the bail applications filed by the appellant.
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein is engaged in the business of companystruction and he is a Director and majority shareholder of M s Abhishek Estates Pvt.
Respondent No.
List with exact details and approximate market value of the seven other immovable properties which were stated to be available as recorded hereinabove shall be annexed to the undertaking and the undertaking shall state that the petitioner shall number, directly or indirectly, alienate, transfer, encumber, let out or in any way deal with any of those properties or allow such dealing till recovery of full amount due to the bank and that those properties shall also be available for being sold by the Administrator of the companyplainant bank in case of any deficit after sale of the properties pledged to the bank.
The appellant remained in jail for quite some time.
The Court granted the prayer by an interim order, dated July 25, 2003 on certain terms and companyditions.
He made applications for release on bail.
If any of the aforesaid properties are held or standing in the name of any of the family members of the petitioners, such family member shall also file similar undertaking in respect of the particular property.
1180/2002 in the Court of Board of Nominees at Surat.
Respondent No.4 Bank filed Lavad Case NO.1180 of 2002 against M s. AEPL and others for recovery of more than Rs.51 crores.
4 herein to advance a loan was granted and substantial amount was paid by respondent No.
Criminal proceedings were also initiated for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the appellant herein was arrested in companynection with those offences.
The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail till further orders on their each furnishing a personal bond in an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ Rupees one lakh only with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Surat, on the same terms and companyditions on which they were released on bail by this Court on March 7, 2005.
It has also companye on record that earlier prayer for temporary bail was granted by this Court pursuant to which the petitioners were enlarged on bail, numberdoubt for a temporary period.
Ltd. M s AEPL for short .
For, this suit has been withdrawn whatever refund for it is required to be paid, same shall have to be paid in the name of the bank.
It is number necessary to narrate the prosecution case in detail in view of the fact that the matter relates to criminal prosecution and default in making payment by the appellant but the matter is settled between the parties and the amount has already been paid by the appellant as per the settlement.
Notice was issued and the matter was heard from time to time.
On May 01, 2000, the appellant requested Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation GIDC for short , Surat for allotment of land for the purpose of development of Housing Zone.
It is number even the allegation of the respondents that the petitioners have violated terms and or companyditions of the said order passed by this Court.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
When the matters came up before the High Court of Gujarat, a prayer was made to enlarge the appellant on temporary bail.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated October 06, 2004 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application NOs.
One of the companyditions imposed on the appellant reads thus The petitioners shall file and undertaking on oath in this companyrt within a period of one week from today giving companyies of the learned Public prosecutor and the administrator of the companyplainant bank, to undertake that he shall facilitate, assist and companyoperative in the earliest possible disposal of all the properties pledged to the bank by himself or his family members of the companypany in which either of them was one of the directors of, members as per the agreement and understanding recorded in this order.
An application made by M s AEPL to the Diamond Jubilee Co operative Bank Ltd., Surat in liquidation , respondent NO.
3331 and 5302 of 2003.
The land was allotted and permission was granted by Surat Urban Development Authority SUDA for companystruction of houses.
