Skip to main content

HC denies bail to bank lawyer for ‘defrauding’ money

The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to M.P. Venkatakrishnan, Assistant Manager (Legal) of HDFC Bank in Tirunelveli district, in two cases registered against him for defrauding the bank to the tune of several lakh of rupees and cancelled the advance bail granted by the Tirunelveli Principal Sessions Court in the third case.

Justice V.M. Velumani dismissed the two anticipatory bail applications filed by the lawyer and allowed a cancellation of advance bail application moved by the bank on the ground that the accused had not even complied with the condition laid down by the Sessions Court on April 28 to report before the Inspector of Tirunelveli City Crime Branch (CCB) every day for a month.

“Allegations against the petitioner are that he is the mastermind in hatching the plan to defraud the bank. He actively participated in forgery and stealthily removed all the loan documents by using the password to which only authorised employees had access… Hence, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present cases,” the judge said.

She pointed out that one of the complaints related to sanctioning of housing loan of Rs.42 lakh to an aged couple on the basis of certain land provided by them as security. The bank had reportedly found that the amount had been sanctioned following collusion between the advance bail petitioner, a receptionist of the bank, her father and a few other accomplices by submitting forged documents.

The second case was on the charge of having misused access granted to him to certain electronic records in his capacity as an employee of the bank and helped one of his accomplices to withdraw a housing loan of Rs.25 lakh which had been actually sanctioned by the bank to another person hailing from Erwadi in Ramanathapuram district and employed in Saudi Arabia.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...