SATISH P. BHATT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 03-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 241 : 2024 INSC 16
Case Details
Satish P. Bhatt
v.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr
(Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2024)
03 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued 
failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation 
of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the 
High Court was justified.
Headnotes
Judicial Directives – Disregard for – The High Court cancelled 
the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the 
appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as 
they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and 
further violated the condition in an order granting extension 
of time to comply – Propriety:
Held: Before the High Court the appellant and the intervenor filed 
an undertaking based on a settlement on 03.07.2018 according to 
which it was agreed that a total sum of Rs.4,63,50,000/- (Out of 
the said amount Rs.73,50,000/- was already paid and remaining 
amount of Rs.3,90,00,000/- was to be paid in instalments) would 
be paid to the complainant-respondent no.2 – Based on the said 
undertaking an interim protection was granted by suspending the 
sentence of imprisonment and they were directed to be released 
on bail on furnishing a personal bond – However, there was a 
failure to fulfil financial obligations – Appellant and intervenor 
made submissions before the Supreme Court regarding, who is 
to pay how much amount – The Court not inclined to go into the 
said question – The fact remains that the total amount agreed 
to be paid has not been paid and as per the order of the High 
Court, the revisionists (appellant and intervenor) being in default in 
payment of the agreed amount, the interim protection granted by 
way of bail and suspension of sentence, would stand withdrawn 
without reference to the Court – No infirmity in the impugned 
order of the High Court – The appeal is accordingly dismissed 
242
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the respondent 
No. 2 (Complainant). [Paras 7, 8, 17, 19]
List of Keywords
Disregard for judicial directives; undermining judicial efficacy.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and 
Appearances
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.42 of 
2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in CRLAP No.244 of 2019.
Appearances:
Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Diganta Gogoi, Bitu Kumar Singh, Advs. for 
the Appellant.
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, 
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Siddharth Sangal, Ms. Richa Mishra, 
Chirag Sharma, Ms. Nilanjani Tandon, Ms. Harshita Agrawal, Manoj 
K. Mishra, Ghanshyam Upadhyay, A. Baskar, J.K. Mishra, Umesh 
Dubey, Vishal, Ms. Madhulika, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1.	
The facts of this case bring to light a situation marked by a persistent 
disregard for judicial directives and a lackadaisical approach to legal 
and financial obligations. The behaviour of the Petitioner stands 
as a testament to how an individual’s nonchalant attitude towards 
financial responsibilities and court orders can undermine the essence 
of judicial efficacy. 
2.	
The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued 
failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation 
of his bail and suspension of sentence. This decision, reflecting the 
frustration of the legal system with repeated non-compliance, sets 
the stage for our deliberation.
3.	
Leave granted.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
243
SATISH P. BHATT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
4.	
The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and 
order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Bombay cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail 
granted to the appellant as also the intervenor (petitioner before 
the High Court) vide order dated 03.07.2018 as they violated the 
undertaking given before the High Court on 03.07.2018 and recorded 
in the order of even date and further violated the condition contained 
in paragraph 3 of the order dated 20.03.2019 granting extension 
of time to comply.
5.	
The appellant-Satish P.Bhatt and the intervenor Vishwanath 
Ramakrishna Nayak were Chairman-cum-Managing Director and 
Vice-Chairman of a company by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.