MANOHAR BHIMRAOJI MAHALLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MPID Act"), the order dated 21.09.2018 passed below Exh.56 in Spl. MPID C No.290/2016 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Amravati is challenged. By said order dated 21.09.2018, objection by the appellants bearing Exh.56 preferred under Section 7(3) of the MPID Act taken in Spl.(MPID) Case No.290 of 2016 to the attachment of the field Survey No.78 admeasuring 5H 10R of Mouja Kathora Bk., Pragane Nandgaon Peth, Tq. and Dist. Amravati is rejected.

(2.) We have heard Shri S. P. Dharmadhikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as Shri T. A. Mirza, learned APP for the respondent Nos.1 and 7, Shri S. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Shri S. B. Gandhe, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Shri A. S. Ambatkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Shri P. S. Wathore, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 respectively.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari on behalf of the appellants that there is merely an agreement of sale dated 14.06.2012 executed between the appellants and the Rana Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., through Director Yogesh Narayanrao Rana (hereinafter referred to as "Developers/Builders") with respect to the land in question and for that earnest amount was accepted and as the Developers/Builders i.e. Rana Landmark Pvt. Ltd., failed to make entire payment as per the agreement and therefore, notices dated 30.11.2015, 06.01.2016 and 29.04.2016 were sent and the said agreement for sale was terminated. He further submitted that by said agreement no right is created in favour of the purchaser. It is the further contention of the learned Senior counsel that for exercising power under Section 4 of the MPID Act providing attachment of the properties, what is important is that the property should have been acquired by financial establishment. He further submitted that agreement does not create any right and what is important for Section 4. is acquisition of the property i.e. transfer of the title and in the present case there is no transfer of title and as said agreement was also terminated in view of defaults committed by the Developer in making payment of balance consideration, action of attachment taken under Section 4 is totally illegal. He further submitted that the acceptance of "earnest money" by the appellants under the said agreement of sale dated 14.06.2012 cannot come within the four corners of the definition of "deposit" as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. He further submitted that therefore, detailed objection as per Section 7(3) of the MPID Act to the attachment of said property were submitted but, the same are decided without considering the detailed objection submitted and therefore appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.09.2018 be quashed and set aside and said objection be allowed.