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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more