On 07.01.2011, learned single Judge of the High Court, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein for setting aside the order of issue of process by learned Magistrate dated 25.01.2008 against the appellants.
Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2011, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
Due to number payment of the loan amount, the account became Non Performing Asset.
90 lakhs from the Company would be shared equally between the respondentCompany and Kotak Mahindra Bank.
Ltd. of more than Rs.
135 lakhs received in excess of Rs.
The respondent Company filed a companyplaint alleging offence punishable under Sections 409, 418, 423 and 425 read with Section 120 B of the IPC against the appellants herein.
As the respondent Company was unable to pay its dues to the Bank, the Bank had filed recovery proceedings before the Tribunal wherein a partial decree for a sum of Rs.812.26 lakhs had been passed.
Brief facts The companyplainant respondent Company borrowed a sum of Rs.
The respondent Company claimed that numbernotice of the alleged assignment dated 29.03.2006 had been given to it.
720 lakhs by way of working capital demand loan, totaling to Rs.
A fresh companyplaint being No.
On 29.03.2006, the State Bank of Travancore assigned the debts due from the companyplainant Company to the Kotak Mahindra Bank together with all the securities through an Assignment Deed.
32 crores were assigned to the Kotak Mahindra Bank.
It is the allegation of the companyplainant that if the companyplainant was informed about the alleged Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2006, it would number have entered into the assignment agreement on 11.01.2007 with the Kotak Mahindra Bank.
900 lakhs companyprising Rs.
On 16.05.2007, the companyplainant respondent Company filed a companyplaint against the Kotak Mahindra Bank and its officers being No.
96 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal DRT , Mumbai.
Being aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred a Criminal Writ Petition being No.
32 crores with an agreement that any excess recovery over and above Rs.
Ltd. without any information to the respondent Company.
In the said proceedings, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed an application for substituting its name in place of State Bank of Travancore claiming all the dues and charge on the immovable properties mortgaged in favour of State Bank of Travancore vide an Assignment Deed dated 29.03.2006.
812.26 lakhs with 12 per cent interest.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, I C ACMM, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, vide order dated 25.01.2008, issued process against the officers of the State Bank of Travancore and Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited.
On 22.07.2005, the DRT passed a partial decree awarding a sum of Rs.
On 11.01.2007, the respondentCompany entered into a Deed of Assignment with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, wherein all the dues of Ravishankar Industries Pvt.
The Kotak Mahindra Bank initiated process for substituting its name in place of the assignor State Bank of Travancore in the recovery application and also withdraws two criminal companyplaints filed by the respondent Company against Ravishankar Industries Pvt.
0800009/SW/08 was filed by the companyplainant the respondent Company before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai under Sections 409, 418, 423 and 425 read with Section 120 B of the IPC against the State Bank of Travancore, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and its officers.
In order to recover the amount against the borrower, the State Bank of Travancore filed OA No.
Ltd. of more than Rs.
180 lakhs through cash credits from the companysortium of Banks of which the State Bank of Travancore was the lead bank and a sum of Rs.
On 11.05.2008, learned Magistrate excluded the officers of the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in view of an application filed by the respondent Company to withdraw the companyplaint against them.
The Bank had in December 1995 sanctioned loan of Rs.
900/ lakhs and the companyplainant Company executed various documents in favour of the Bank.
720 lakhs being working capital demand Loan.
67.5 lakhs due towards the companyplainant Company, being 50 per cent of the amount of Rs.
225 lakhs without giving any information to it as to the terms of settlement and the mode of payment.
On 11.01.2007, the borrower the respondent Company assigned to Kotak Mahindra Bank the debt due towards it from one Ravishankar Industries Pvt.
1279 of 2010 before the High Court.
180 lakhs by way of cash credit facility and Rs.
90 lakhs from the Ravishankar Industries Pvt.
Ltd. would be shared equally between the Kotak Mahindra Bank and the companyplainant Company.
Even a scratch was number given to anybody.
90 lakhs from Ravishankar Industries Pvt.
Nobody on the side of the respondent was hurt.
On 28.04.2007, the Kotak Mahindra Bank moved an application before the Recovery Officer I for appropriating Rs.
Ltd., against the claim towards the State Bank of Travancore.
1279 of 2010 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein.
K. Agrawal, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.
