Holding

Since the appellant fully paid the amount under the One Time Settlement and the bank accepted the payment and withdrew the suit, the interim conditions no longer survive and the attached properties must be released, granting relief to the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, a director of a construction firm, had obtained a large loan from a bank that later went into liquidation. The bank filed a liquidation suit and criminal proceedings for default. The appellant was granted temporary bail with conditions, but the High Court later vacated the bail and re‑imprisoned him. The appellant entered into a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the bank, fully repaid the amount, and the bank accepted the payment and withdrew the liquidation suit. The Supreme Court held that, because the debt was fully satisfied, the interim conditions imposed by the High Court no longer survived and the attached properties should be released, relieving the appellant of the undertaking. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

Whether the conditions imposed in the interim bail order survive after the appellant has fully settled the debt under a One Time Settlement.
Whether the appellant is entitled to release of properties attached in execution of the liquidation suit.
Whether the appellant should be relieved of the undertaking given to the court in view of full payment and withdrawal of the suit.
Whether the bail granted earlier can be continued or needs to be altered after settlement.

Legislation cited

Subjects

bailone time settlementloan defaultattachment of propertywithdrawal of suitliquidationcriminal proceedingssettlementdirector

Judgment

[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.

t-·
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-
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
.C amount and also withdrew the Lavad case .
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The amount which was required -to be paid ~t..
. by M/s AEPL has already been paid by the appellant un- t
der OTS. The Bank has, by its communication dated Sep-
0
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
,
(,
I
)

· by. the appellant under OTS, nothing remained due and t
I
F payable by thEf appellant to respondent No.4-Bank. Ac- >-
cordingly, the properties are ordered to be released. The i" j
~

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 · ·
From the Judgment .~nd final Order dated 6/10/2004 of
H ,..,-'f;"'
---~
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-case in
detail in view of the fact that the matter relates to criminal pros-
ecution and default in making payment by the appellant but the
matter is settled between the parties and the amount has al-
E
ready been paid by the appellant as per the settlement.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the
appellant herein is engaged in the business of construction and
he is a Director and majority shareholder of M/s Abhishek Es-
--\ tates Pvt. Ltd. ('M/s AEPL' for short). On May 01, 2000, the ap- F
~ pellant requested Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
('GIDC' for short), Surat for allotment of land for the purpose of
development of Housing Zone. The land was allotted and per-
mission was granted by Surat Urban Development Authority
(SUDA) for construction of houses. An application made by M/
G
s AEPL to the Diamond Jubilee Co-operative Bank Ltd., Surat
wL- (in liquidation), respondent NO. 4 herein to advance a loan was
granted and substantial amount was paid by respondent No. 4
to M/s AEPL. The Bank was ordered to be closed as per the
direction of the Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No.4 Bank
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A filed Lavad Case NO .1180 of 2002 against Mis. AEPL and oth- r
ers for recovery of more than Rs.51 crores. Criminal proceed-
ings were also initiated for various offences under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and the appellant herein was arrested in
connection with those offences.
B 5. The appellant remained in jail for quite some time. He
made applications for release on bail. When the matters came
up before the High Court of Gujarat, a prayer was made to en-
large the appellant on temporary bail. The Court granted the
prayer by an interim order, dated July 25, 2003 on certain terms
c and conditions. One of the conditions imposed on the appellant
reads thus;
"The petitioners shall file an undertaking on oath in this
court within a period of one week from today giving copies
to the learned Public prosecutor and the administrator of
D
the complainant bank, to.undertake that he shall facilitate,
assist and co-operative in the earliest possible disposal
of all the properties pledged to the bank by himself or his
-~~~'
family members of the company in which either of them
was one of the directors of, members as per the agreement
E and understanding recorded in this order. List with exact
details and approximate market value of the seven other
immovable properties which were stated to be available
as recorded hereinabove shall be annexed to the
undertaking and the undertaking shall state that the
F petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, alienate, transfer, )-

encumber, let out or in any way deal with any of those ~
properties or allow such dealing till recovery of full amount
due to the bank and that those properties shall also be
available for being sold by the Admrnistrator of the
G complainant bank in case of any deficit after sale of the
properties pledged to the bank. If any of the aforesaid
properties are held or standing in the name of any of the
family members of the petitioners, such family member
...
shall also file similar undertaking in respect of the particular
H property. The petitioners shall also undertake, as stated
C.R. PATIL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 157
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
.J.:-
' before the court, that the petitioners shall ·sign the A
necessary documents, make the necessary applications
in the pending legal proceedings regarding the properties
to be put up for sale and co-operative in every manner
and be available at all times for implementation and
execution of the arrangement arrived at as above for the B
purpose of discharging his debts.
6. The appellant was accordingly enlarged on bail during
the pendency of the petition. At the final hearing, however, the 1
High Court dismissed the petitions and vacated interim relief.
which was granted earlier. Resultantly, the relief '!'fhich was c
granted in favour of the appellant came to an end and he was
taken in custody again.
7. The appellant approached this Court. Notice was is-
sued and the matter was heard from time to time. On July 22,
D
2005, a three-Judge Bench granted relief to the appellant by
r
--......,
observing as under;
"H~ving heard the learne_d counsel for the partles, we are
of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to grant
prayer of the petitioners. As stated in the petition itself, the E
order passed by the High Court is subject matter of
challenge and Special Leave Petitions are pending before
this Court. It has also come on record that earlier prayer
for temporary bail was granted by this Court pursuant to
-\ which the petitioners were enlarged on bail, no doubt for F
a temporary period. It is not even the allegation of the
7
respondents that the petitioners have violated terms and/
or conditions of the said order passed by this Court. When
the petitioners have shown their willingness to pay the
amount and the Special Leave Petitions are pending, this
G
Court will consider all aspects when the matters will be
-,,.... taken up for hearing. But in view of the fact that an order
was passed by this Court temporarily releasing them on
bail is over and Special Leave Petitions await hearing
and as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners, the
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A petitioners intend to enter into meaningful negotiations -r-
with the respondents and to do all the necessary acts for
payment of loan amount, it would be .in the interest of
justice to enlarge them on bail so as to enable them to
make arrangements for such payment.
B For the foregoing reasons, the application deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are
:,---
ordered to be enlarged on bail till further orders on their
each furnishing a personal bond in an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent ,

c sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Sessions Court, Surat, on the same terms and conditions
on which they were released on bail by this Court on March
7, 2005.
As is clear, we are allowing bail to the two petitioners
ti
persuaded by very peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, and guided mainly by the consideration that \
'r
their retention in jail would be adverse to the interest of the
several investors/depositors of the bank while the latter
are likely to be benefited by the release of the petitioners /'
E on temporary bail, it is hoped that the petitioners shall '
make a genui.1e effort making use of their liberty to clear
the debts. If the petitioners are found to have failed in
discharging this obligation or misusing their liberty in any
way, the order of bail shall be liable to be recalled."
F f
8. Pursuant to the above order, the appellant was released 1',
on bail. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the
appellant made sincere efforts and has entered into One Time
Settlement (OTS) with the respondent Bank and fully re-paid
the amount as per the said settlement. Respondent No. 4-Bank
G
addressed a letter to the appellant in the capacity of Director of
Mis AEPL which reads thus; -Y
"This is to certify that the abovementioned account No, OD-
ODR-011 ·has been fully repaid as per your application
H under Special One Time Settlement Scheme (18-5-07)
C.R. PATIL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 159
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
-\
approved by the High Level Committee meeting held on A
25-8-2008."
9. The matter was thereafter placed before a two-Judge
Bench on September 19, 2006 and the following order was
passed;
B
,, "It is stated by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner(s) that the parties have settled
their disputes in terms whereof out of Rs.68 crores, 25%
of which would come to Rs.17 crores would be paid by the
petitioner(s). It is stated that the petitioner(s) have c
deposited a total amount of Rs.12 crores by now. The
diamond Jubilee Co-operative Bank Ltd. in terms of its
letter dated 14.9.2006 has allowed the petitioner(s) to
pay balance amount of Rs.5 crores by4.10.2006. Mr. Tulsi
states that petitioner(s) shall pay the balance amount of
D
Rs.5 crores within the aforementioned period."
~
10. The respondent No. 4-Bank is in liquidation and Offi-
cial Liquidator is managing the affairs of the Bank who has filed
Lavad Case No. 1180/2002 in the Court of Board of Nominees
at Surat. He has also informed the Board of Nominees that the E
defendants in the Lavad Suit (M/s AEPC & Ors.) had fully paid
up the full amount under OTS Scheme and the plaintiff (Bank)
did not want to proceed with the matter and accordingly it sought
permission to withdraw the suit.
\
/ 11. The said application reads thus; F
"The defendant of this matter has fully paid up the full
amount under the OTS Scheme, which has been agreed
in the meeting dated 25.8.2008 of High Level Committee
(Gandhinagar), this plaintiff does not want to proceed in
G
this suit and on today withdraw the same unconditionally,
which is declare to this honourable court.

For, this suit has been withdrawn whatever refund for it is
required to be paid, same shall have to be paid in the
name of the bank." H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 12. Necessary permission was granted by the Board of
Nominee for withdrawal of the suit and the Lavad Case is no
more pending.
__,
13. We have also heard the learned counsel for the State. On
behalf ofthe State it wa~ stated that the entire amount which was
B required to be paid by Mis. AEPC has already been paid and an
appropriate order may be passed granting relief in favour of the
appellant and the State has no objection if such prayer-is granted.
14. From the above facts, it is clear that the amount which
c was required to be paid by M/s AEPC has already been paid
by the appellant herein under OTS. The Bank has, vide its com-
.-'munication dated September 19, 2008 referred to above, ac-
- cepted the above fact Again, the Bank which had filed Lavad
ca·se through Official Liquidator in the Court of Board of Nomi-
D nees, Surat has also withdrawn the said suit in view of settle-
ment and receipt of payment under OTS. The Stat~ has also no
objection to the said settlement.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant now prays that in
view of full payment under OTS, nothing requires to be done by !
I
-,
E the appellant. The'"" condition imposed by the High Court in the
interim order r-eferred to above does not survive and his proper-
ties·may b~ ordered to be released from attachment and be made
available to tiim by relieving him of the undertaking given by him.
16. In our opinion, the appellant is entitled to the relief
F sought. In view of full settlementbetween-the parties and pay-
ment made by the appellant under OTS now nothing is due and
payable by the appellant to the respondent No.4-Bank. Accord-
ingly, the properties are ordered to be released. Title Deeds
and documents, if any, pertaining to the said property be handed
G over and returned to the appellant by respondent No.4-Bank.
The appellant is also relieved of the undertaking given to the
Court.
17. Appeal Partly allowed.

H D.G. -'=-->Appeals allowed.