Skip to main content

SC says, bank fraud not just a civil dispute

The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Madras High Court judgment in the case Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd vs State. After this decision by the apex court, trial courts are now allowed to proceed with the prosecution of former directors of the bank who allegedly colluded with managers of five different firms to commit fraud against the bank.

SC says, bank fraud not just a civil dispute. According to the charge sheets in the case, the managers of the five  firms were maintaining current account with the bank since 2000, and they collectively siphoned around INR 2.51 crore from the bank with the help of the other accused, sources informed.

The fraud which was first discovered in June 2003, deployed the following modus operandi:

The accused managed to encash cheques at the bank’s Tiruppur branch despite the drawers accounts not having the requested amount. Apparently, the branch manager facilitated the transactions using the Local Bill Discounting provisions.

Later, after learning from the bank that their cheques had bounced, the accused deposited cheques with even higher amount in order to “clear the debt”.

After they were dragged to the court, the accused appealed to the High Court for quashing all criminal charges filed against them. The HC, after coming under the impression that the dispute in concern was more of a civil nature and the bank could move the debt recovery tribunal to recover the money, cleared the accused of criminal charges.

However, the SC has now set aside the HC judgment saying that the forgery was not just a breach of contractual terms, but smacked of criminality. Based on that opinion, the court allowed criminal proceedings against the accused to resume full fledgedly.

Article referred: http://www.vakilno1.com/legal-news/sc-says-bank-fraud-just-civil-dispute.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 138 NI Act: Omission To Mention Nature Of Debt Or Liability In Notice Does Not Render It Invalid

In Crl.MC.No. 3289 of 2015, B.SURENDRA DAS vs STATE OF KERALA, the court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that no demand for payment of the amount of the cheque was made by the complainant as per the notice sent by him and therefore, the notice is defective and the proceedings initiated against the accused pursuant to such notice cannot be sustained. The court observed that there is no statutory requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability. All the complainant has to do is to raise a demand for payment which is a notice to the debtor giving him time to pay but there is no format in which the notice is to be sent.
Post a Comment
Read more