BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJENDRA LILADHAR RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-Bank of Maharashtra, which is a banking company duly constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970, against the respondents who were the defendants in a civil suit filed by the bank for recovery of certain amount. FACTS

(2.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Directors of M/s. Apex Nylocraft Industries Private Limited. The respondent No. 1 is the Director of M/s. Apex Nylocraft Industries Private Limited. The respondent No. 2 was also a Director of the said company, but he expired during the pendency of these proceedings The petitioner had given a loan to the respondents and since the said loan was not repaid, the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the contemners in which they had claimed an amount of Rs. 21,56,992. 04. Though notices were served on the contemners in the said suit yet they did not appear before the Court consequently did not file their written statement and, therefore, the suit proceeded ex parte and ultimately an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and the decree was drawn up accordingly. The petitioner filed execution proceedings in the trial Court on 28-7-1998. The Executing Court issued warrant of attachment of the property of the respondents and for that purpose the application was made by the petitioner to engage a special bailiff. Accordingly, the order to that effect was passed by the Executing Court and a special bailiff was appointed for the purpose of executing the warrant of attachment for the recovery of Rs. 31,94,981. 04. This order was passed on 19-8-1998.

(3.) WHEN the said warrant of attachment was sought to be enforced by the petitioner, the contemners paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash and issued four post dated cheques to the petitioner of Rs. 45,000/- each which were drawn on Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank, Nagpur. The bailiff accepted the said cheques and forwarded them to the petitioner-bank. The bank, in turn, deposited the said cheques and those cheques were dishonoured on 14-9-1998 with an endorsement that there were insufficient funds in the account of the respondents.