C.R. PATIL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 03-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 153 
-1 
C.R. PATIL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1573 _?f 2008) 
OCTOBER 3, 2008 
B 
...... 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
-,/. 
Criminal Jaw: Prosecution for default in payment of dues 
- Arrest of appellant - Order releasing him on temporary bail 
on certain terms and conditions - One time settlement (OTS) c 
between parties - In terms thereof, full payment made by ap-
.,.. 
pellant - Plea of appellant that he be relieved from the condi-
tions imposed in interim order - Tenability of - Held: Tenable 
- In view of full settlement between parties and payment made 
under OTS, nothing remained due and payable - Conditions D 
in interim order did not survive - Properties ordered to be re-
"---< 
leased - Compromise/Settlement. 
Appellant was the Director of AEPL Company which 
was engaged in the business of construction. The said 
company obtained a substantial amount of loan from re-
E 
' 
spondent no.4-Bank for construction of houses. Respon-
dent No.4-Bank went into liquidation and was ordered to 
be closed as per direction of RBI. The said Bank filed 
Lavad case against AEPL company for recovery of more 
~ than Rs.51 crores. Criminal proceedings were also -initi-
F 
"")-
ated for various offences under Indian Penal Code and 
the appellant was arrested in connection with those of-
fences. He remained in jail for sometime. He made an ap-
plication for release on bail. A prayer was made for en-
larging him on temporary bail which was granted on cer-
G 
tain terms and conditions. At the final hearing, however, 
...... 
the High Court dismissed the petitions and vacated the 
interim relief which.. was granted earlier; and the appel-
lant was again taken into custody. 
153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT -REPORTS 
(2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant approached the Supreme Court. On 
· 22.7.2005, a three-Judge Bench granted temporary bail 
to the appellant holding that he intended ·to enter into 
meaningful negotiations with the respondents and do all 
the necessary acts for payment of loan amount and, there-
t-· 
s fore, it was in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail: __ 
The appellant stated that he had entered into One Time 
Settlement (OTS) with the respondent-Bank and fully re-· 
-r 
paid the amount as per the said s~ttlement. Respondent 
no.4-Bank accepted the fact of Rayment of settlement 
amount and also withdrew the Lavad case . 
. C 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
~t.
HELD: 1. The amount which was required -to be paid 
.
. by M/s AEPL has already been paid by the appellant un-
t 
0 
der OTS. The Bank has, by its communication dated Sep-
tember 19, 2008 accepted the above fact. Again, the Bank 
\ 
_which had filed Lavad Case through Official Liquidator iQ-
'r 
the Court of Board of Nominees, has also withdrawn the 
said suit in view of settlement and receipt of payment 
_ under ·OTS. The State has also no objection to the said. 
E settlement. [Para 14] [160-C,D] 
· 
2. The appellant is entitled to the relief sought. In view 
.of full settlement between the parties and payment made 
· by. the appellant under OTS, nothing remained due and 
F payable by thEf appellant to respondent No.4-Bank. Ac-
cordingly, the properties are ordered to be released. The 
condition imposed by the High Court in the interim order 
does not suniive and his properties may be ordered to be 
released from attachment and be made available to him -
G by relieving him of the undertaking given by him. [Paras 
15, 16) [160-F & E] 
CRIMINALAPPElLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1573 of ~008 · 
· 
H 
From the Judgment .~nd final Order dated 6/10/2004 of 
,..,-'f;"' 
---~ 
) 
I ,
(, 
t 
I 
>-
i" j 
~ 
C.R. PATIL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
155 
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Ap-
A 
plication No. 3331 of 2003 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kumar 
Choudhary, Rucha A Mayee and Sanjay Visen for the Appel-
lant. 
B 
Hemantika VVahi, Pinky, K. Enatali Serna, Anip Sachthey, 
-J.. 
Abhijit P Medh and Brajesh Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment 
and order dated October 06, 2004 passed by the High Court of 
Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application NOs. 3331 and 
5302 of 2003. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the 
bail applications ·filed by th,e appellant. 
' D 
~ 
3. It is not necessary to narrate the prosecution-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.