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 ...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...