High Court to Govt: Why did you transfer Accounts of Police Officials from State Bank of India to Pvt. Bank

State Bank of India On Thursday, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court asked the State Govt. to study the case papers in a petition challenging the alleged transfer of Police staff & beneficiaries accounts from nationalised banks to Axis Bank.
A Division bench of Justices PN Deshmukh & Pushpa Ganediwala gave two weeks time to the State Govt. to study the case papers to assist the court on the issuance of notices.
The petition contended that the Maharashtra Govt. had in the year 2017 transferred the accounts of Police staff & beneficiaries of various schemes from nationalised banks to Axis Bank, in which Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s wife Amruta D Fadnavis was a senior position.
Advocate Harshal S Burapatre had filed the petition in the court on behalf of social worker Mohanish Jabalpure.
The Court also allowed the petitioner to remove the name of Amruta D Fadnavis from the petition.
The petitioner had requested to remove her name from the petition since she is no longer holding the office in Axis Bank.
The petition sought the court’s direction to the State Bank of India to estimate the how many accounts of Police officials have been transferred from the bank to Axis Bank & how much loss it has incurred on the government bank.
It also challenged the action of the state government of issuing a circular for passing a Govt. circular & entering into a contract with Axis bank with interest to help Amruta D Fadnavis, wife of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.
Maharashtra Police, today, also released a clarification saying the accounts of Police officials have had accounts in Axis Bank & other private banks since the year 2003.

No relief to ex-Bank official in Rs 5Kcr fraud case; court denies bail

A Delhi court on Thursday denied extending relief to an ex-Andhra Bank official in a money laundering case citing he may hamper the investigation if enlarged on bail. The Rs 5,000 crore fraud also involves a Gujarat-based pharma firm.

Additional Sessions Judge Sidharth Sharma denied relief to accused Anup Prakash Garg, noting that the stage was not fit for grant of bail.

The court took note of the submissions made by advocate Nitesh Rana, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, who said the investigation was still underway and the accused played a key role in money laundering.

“The accused may hamper with the investigation if enlarged on bail. Considering his offence, he does not deserve bail,” Rana had said.

In his bail application, Garg had said he was not the main accused in the case and had always cooperated with the investigation, even before his arrest. He said he was in custody for 109 days and the charge sheet against him has already been filed, so he was not required for the further probe.

Garg was arrested by the probe agency on January 12 and is currently in judicial custody. He was one of the three people arrested in the case. The agency had in November last year held Delhi-based businessman Gagan Dhawan, who is currently on bail.

Besides Dhawan and Garg, the ED has also arrested Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit, one of the directors of the pharma firm, who is currently in the agency’s custody for interrogation. All three were arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ED had lodged the money laundering case after taking cognisance of an FIR registered by the CBI.

The CBI had booked Garg, the firm Sterling Biotech, its directors Dixit, Chetan Jayantilal Sandesara, Dipti Chetan Sandesara, Nitin Jayantilal Sandesara and Vilas Joshi, chartered accountant Hemant Hathi and some unidentified persons in connection with the case. It had alleged that the company took loans of over Rs 5,000 crore from a consortium led by Andhra Bank, which turned into non-performing assets.

The FIR had also alleged that the total pending dues of the group companies were Rs 5,383 crore as on December 31, 2016. It had alleged that “various cash payments were made to Garg, as reflected in the said entries, on the instructions of the Sandesara brothers, by withdrawing cash from the bank accounts of several benami companies owned by them”.

It had alleged that Garg infused several crores of his unaccounted money in various companies through several Kolkata-based bogus shell companies, with the help of cash or cheque entry operators in Kolkata, in order to launder the proceeds of crime obtained by him from the Sandesaras.

Online fraud transactions in Bank of Baroda Customer’s account

Online fraud transactions in Bank of Baroda
Online fraud transactions in Bank of Baroda

Recently on 12th March 2016, Mr.Chandra Bhushan, who is associated with Legal India & Pravakta.com as an IT Consultant faced online fraud transaction in his Bank of Baroda’s bank account. In the noon of 12th march at 12:03PM, Mr. Bhushan got three SMS of debit of Rs.5078.97 from his bank account.

He was shocked to see the SMS and immediately checked his account logging via online. He noticed that the debit transaction of Rs.5078.97 has been done repeatedly 3 times at an interval of 25-30 seconds at 12:03pm on 12th March 2016 to an unknown recipient but the transaction date was mentioned 14th March 2016, i.e. two days advance.



He immediately called the customer care center of Bank of Baroda and complain about the issues, But the customer care executive was totally unable to tell about the transaction and recipients, he only suggested to block the debit card. Mr. Bhushan immediately requested to block the card and asked about the advance date of transaction.

Customer care executive justified the transaction by saying that due to Saturday since bank working hour closed after 12:00pm therefore all the transaction done after 12:00pm will be showed in the date of coming working day. However Mr. Bhushan referred about the last Saturday, 5th March transaction of Rs.340 to Bharati Airtel at evening 5:00PM that was registered on the same day i.e. 5th March 2016. But again Customer Care executive has not given any satisfactory reply.

He requested the Executives to block the transaction of 14th March since its future transactions but Executive expressed his inability to do so.

Now the question is that has the Bank of Baroda provided online transaction facilities to its account holders without any security prevention?

Secondly can any unanimous user, do future transaction date entry in their bank server.

Thirdly can any unanimous user can do transaction in any one’s account without their permission?

Fourthly if any account holders know about future fraud transaction, then how he will stop the transaction?


Online fraud transactions in Bank of Baroda
Online fraud transactions in Bank of Baroda

It is important to mention that now a days Bank of Baroda is under CBI investigation for illegal foreign transaction of Rs.6,000 Crore under ‘Forex Scam’.

(Read Source :




Mr. Chandra Bhushan investigated that all the transaction mentioning TENPAY*TENCENT i.e. transaction code of TENCENT payment gateway a China based reputed online payment gateway.

Mr. Bhushan showed his worry about these transaction, that may be a trick of illegal foreign transaction like ‘Forex Scam’.

Legal India in favour of general public warns customers of Bank of Baroda to take precautions if bearing online banking facility or ATM Card or Credit Card.

Coalscam:Court frames charges against ex-coal secy, 5 others

coal scamA special court today framed charges against former coal secretary H C Gupta and five others in a coal scam case pertaining to alleged irregularities in allocation of a coal block in Madhya Pradesh to an accused firm.

Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar put the six on trial for alleged offences under section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of IPC and under relevant provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Besides Gupta, the court framed charges against two senior public servants, K S Kropha and K C Samria, firm Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Ltd (KSSPL), its managing director Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and chartered accountant Amit Goyal.

Kropha was the then Joint Secretary in Ministry of Coal, while Samria was the then Director (Coal Allocation-I) section in the ministry. The court has now fixed the matter October 28 for admission/denial of documents by accused, filed in the case by CBI.

The court had on October 1 ordered framing of charges against these accused observing that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was kept in the “dark” by Gupta, who had prima facie violated the law and the trust imposed on him on the issue of coal block allocation.

The case pertains to alleged irregularities in allocation of Thesgora-B Rudrapuri coal block in Madhya Pradesh to KSSPL. The court on October 13 last year had summoned them as accused after refusing to accept CBI’s closure report. The accused were earlier granted bail by the court.

CBI had lodged an FIR against KSSPL, its officials and other unknown persons for alleged misrepresentation of facts, including inflated net worth, to acquire the coal block.

Corp Bank to pay Rs 37K for deficiency in service

corporation bankCorporation Bank has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 37,000 to one of its customers after holding it guilty of “deficiency in service” for wrongly taking money from him.

New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench presided by C K Chaturvedi asked the bank to pay Rs 37,863, including compensation for harassment, to Delhi resident Tarun Kumar Dutta, who was an account holder of the bank and whose EMI it had paid using the funds of another account holder.

The bank had paid Dutta’s EMI, despite insufficient funds in his account, from LIC’s account and asked him to repay the money with interest after two years when he approached it to close his account, the forum noted.

“Careful perusal of pleadings reveal that Opposite Party 1 (bank) had made an error in honouring the cheque in 2008 despite lack of funds in complainant’s account….Opposite Party (OP) bank did not show its prudence in rectifying this error and verifying with complainant but continued in a purely mechanical manner.

“It was only in December 2010, when complainant approached the OP bank for closure of accounts, OP made the complainant pay this particular cheque allegedly encashed in 2008 along with interest,” the forum, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said.

Dutta had told the forum that he was paying EMI of Rs 25,483 to a company via post dated cheques drawn on bank.

On October 31, 2008, the company deposited the cheque with the bank which was allegedly dishonoured, he said.

He, however, claimed he knew on that date his account did not have sufficient funds and he paid by cash the particular installment.

Dutta said that on December 15, 2010, he went to the bank to close his account and came to know that payment of cheque of Rs 25,483 was due, which he paid with interest and closed the account.

Later on, Dutta discovered that the cheque was due on October 31, 2008 and the bank had deducted the payment on closure of account in December 2010.

The bank, which admitted error on its part, however, said that despite insufficient funds in Dutta’s account, money was still credited to the company from LIC’s account so the complainant did not undergo any suffering.

The forum, in its order, asked the bank as to why the amount for the cheque was not debited from Dutta’s account in 2008 itself but was imposed on him along with interest in 2010 at the time of closure of account.

“OP has not adduced any reasonable explanation to this query. For this internal mismanagement of OP bank, the account holder cannot be held responsible,” it said.

The forum said that the bank also failed to show why account of LIC was debited to honour Dutta cheque.

“We…Hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct OP to pay Rs 27,863… We also award a sum of Rs 10,000 as compensation for deficiency, harassment, mental agony, inconveniences and litigation expenses,” the forum said.

(Source: PTI)

BCCI-Nimbus row: SC asks banks to deposit Rs 400 cr

The Supreme Court today asked three nationalised banks to deposit Rs 400 crore towards securing the claim of BCCI in a dispute over termination of the Rs 1,600-crore contract between the cricket board and Nimbus Communications, pending the hearing of their dispute.

A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Desai asked Punjab National Bank, Indian Bank and the Union Bank of India to deposit the amount within 15 days with the Bombay High Court Registry, which would then remit the money to the bank account of BCCI.

The order of the apex court came on a Special Leave Petition filed by the BCCI stemming from the banks’ refusal to pay the money to the tune of Rs 1,600 crore under the conditional bank guarantees issued by them towards the contract executed in consideration of the Media Rights License Agreement (MRLA) between BCCI and Nimbus for broadcasting the cricket matches.

Appearing for BCCI, senior advocate C A Sundaram said the matter pertains to a four-year Media Rights License Agreement entered into by the BCCI with Nimbus Communications Ltd in 2009 for telecast of all domestic and international matches played by India at home between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014.

However, BCCI in December 2011 cancelled the domestic broadcasting rights given to Nimbus owing to a default in payment.

The Board had then sought to encash the guarantees, which was refused by the banks.

The BCCI filed suits against the three banks before the Bombay High Court which granted the banks leave to defend the suit on a condition that they deposit Rs 400 crore with the the high court which would then redeposit the sums with the respective banks.

Aggrieved by this order, the BCCI had moved the apex court contending that that there was no point in redepositing the money with the bank.

The BCCI, today, also undertook that if the suit initiated by it fails, the amount of Rs 400 crore would be returned by it along with interest.


Court rejects bank’s plea for FIR against customers

Delhi court dismissed a plea lodge as a criminal case by a Punjab National Bank against its two customers for allegedly taking out money from a third customer’s account through an ATM card, wrongly issued to them.

District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge R K Gauba dismissed the PNB plea, made against Metropolitan Magistrate Ankit Singla’s order, which too had dismissed it.

In its complaint, the bank had said Sobha Rani Pattnaik and her husband Sudhanshu Bhushan Pattnaik had opened a current account in its Lado Sarai branch in South Delhi on March 26.

It said the couple approached the bank on March 27 for issuance of ATM card in respect of their current account but the bank wrongly issued them the ATM of another customer M/s Shubhadra Store and “they withdrew Rs 10, 68,077 from the ATM account knowing full well that it did not belong to them as they had only Rs 17,975 in their account.”

The bank thus sought registration of the FIR against them for offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating and under other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The magistrate, however, had held that basic requirement for the offence of cheating is that there should be prior inducement with dishonest intention.

The magistrate had said “In the present case from the complaint there is no fact which can be deduced that accused number 1 (Sobha Rani) and 2 (Sudhanshu) induced the complainant in any manner for delivering them the ATM card of another customer.”

The magistrate had held that though there was “prima facie misappropriation” by the couple, “the essential element (for the offence of criminal breach of trust) of entrusting property was missing as the bank inadvertently gave the ATM card of another customer to proposed accused.”

The sessions court upheld the magistrate’s order saying, “the magistrate has declined the prayer for directions to the police to investigate the matter for the reasons that entire evidence is within the reach of the complainant and no custodial interrogation or field investigation is necessary.”

The bank has, however, been allowed to lead evidence in support of its complaint under section 200 (examination of complainant) of the CrPC.

Supreme Court suggests fine in cheque bounce cases

The Supreme Court has suggested that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be amended so that a convict in a cheque bounce case is made to pay a fine from which the complainant can be paid a compensation.

 “One other solution is a further amendment to the act so that in all cases where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of fine of an amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount and interest thereon, at a fixed rate of 9 percent per annum, followed by award of such sum as compensation from the fine amount,” said the supreme court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran (since retired) and Justice R.M. Lodha in a recent judgment.

 Speaking for the bench Justice Raveendran said: “This would lead to uniformity in decisions, avoid multiplicity of proceedings (one for enforcing civil liability and another for enforcing criminal liability) and achieve the object of Chapter XVII of the act, which is to increase the credibility of the instrument.”

 “This is, however, a matter for the Law Commission of India to consider,” the judgment said.

 The judges said that the act “strongly leant towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation”.

 “The courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9 percent per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation”.

 The supreme court said that the compensation by way of restitution on account of dishonour of the cheque should be “practical and realistic”.

 “Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice,” the judgment said.

 “In same type of cheque dishonour cases, after convicting the accused, if some courts grant compensation and if some other courts do not grant compensation, the inconsistency, though perfectly acceptable in the eye of law, will give rise to certain amount of uncertainty in the minds of litigants about the functioning of courts,” the judgment said.

 Citizens will not be able to arrange or regulate their affairs in a proper manner, as they will not know whether they should simultaneously file a civil suit or not.

 The problem is aggravated since in spite of provisions for concluding such cases within six months from the date of the filing of the complaint, these seldom reach finality before three-four years, the judgment said.

 These cases give rise to complications where civil suits have not been filed within three years on account of the pendency of the criminal cases.

 “While it is not the duty of criminal courts to ensure that successful complainants get the cheque amount also, it is their duty to have uniformity and consistency, with other courts dealing with similar cases,” the judgment underlined.

 The court said this while dismissing an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s verdict that the trial court verdict of imposing fine and awarding compensation could not co-exist.

Cabinet discusses black money issue after apex court rap

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh raised the issue of black money during a cabinet meeting here Thursday, a day after the Supreme Court queried why the government cannot name those involved in this $1.5-trillion “national plunder”.

The discussion came against the backdrop of the apex court coming down heavily on the government’s reluctance to provide full information on ill-gotten money stashed away by Indians in foreign banks.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, officials said, will hold a detailed briefing on the discussion soon.

The prime minister made it clear Wednesday that information on black money stashed in tax havens abroad cannot be made public as it would entail violation of India’s treaty obligations with other countries and jurisdictions.

“The information will not be made public. It will be a violation of treaties,” Manmohan Singh told reporters after initiating a cabinet reshuffle when asked about his stand on black money abroad.

“There is no instant solution to bring back what is called black money. We have got some information and that has been provided to us for use in the collection of taxes.”

The matter had come up before the apex court after noted lawyer Ram Jethamalani sought directions to the union government to act upon a report that Germany was willing to share details of Indians having accounts in banks based in Liechtenstein.

Jethamalani wanted the directions to be given to the government to bring back such ill-gotten money, estimated at a whopping $1.5 trillion – nearly one-and-a-half times India’s gross domestic product – put away in foreign banks by Indians.

“It is not a case of tax. The issue involved is of serious nature. Keep aside all the things. Let us consider the persons named,” said the apex court bench of Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy and Justice S.S.Nijjar.

The finance ministry in its status report during last hearing of the case said there were 12 trusts owned by 26 tax assesses, which even include non-residrnt Indians, that hold accounts in the Swiss and German banks in Liechtenstein.

There are 15 banks in Liechtenstein, of which seven are Swiss-owned. The principality, with an area of about 160 sq km, is surrounded by Switzerland and Austria and has a total population of 67,000 people.

Mukherjee had maintained in the past that India has followed the guidelines laid down by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and signed independent treaties with a host of countries and territories.

He has also said these treaties were meant to share information on illegal transfers, often referred to as black money, but cannot be disclosed even to parliament, let alone the Directorate of Enforcement because of the secrecy code.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Nitin Gadkari has said the union government’s reluctance to disclose the names of Indians with ill-gotten money parked abroad raised suspicions about it and the government should make the names public.

Banks asked to deposit Emaar MGF’s guarantee money with court

Emmar MGF

The Delhi High Court Monday asked two state-run banks to deposit the Rs.93 crore bank guarantee of real estate giant Emaar MGF for constructing the Commonwealth Games (CWG) village with its registrar general till the disposal of a case relating to incomplete work at the site. 

A division bench of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice G.P. Mittal asked the banks to cancel two pay orders – Rs.60 crore by the State Bank of India (SBI) and Rs.33 crore by the State Bank of Patiala (SBP) – to be issued to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for encashment, and deposit the amount with the high court registrar general.

“We direct SBI and SBP to cancel the pay orders and simultaneously deposit the amounts with the registrar general of this court. The disbursement of this sum shall then await till further orders of this court,” the bench said.

The court had Oct 25, 2010, while approving the Rs.90 crore partial encashment of the bank guarantee by DDA, had asked the housing body not to encash the entire amount totaling Rs.183 crore.

The court had given the approval after DDA informed it that it had already encashed Rs.90 crore.

Emaar MGF has filed an appeal challenging the order of a single judge bench dismissing its plea for restraining DDA from seizing its bank guarantee as damages for not completing the project on time.

DDA had proceeded to seize the bank guarantee on a directive of the union urban development ministry. The ministry had also asked DDA to initiate legal action against the real estate giant for recovery of other expenditure for “deficiencies” and “delays” in construction of the Games Village.

The direction by the government to DDA had come a day after the civic authority submitted an interim report in which it said “immediate action” was required against the builder for “non-execution of the project as per the agreement”.

In the petition, Emaar MGF had countered the allegations and said the “threat” issued by DDA to encash the entire bank guarantee was illegal as the liquidated damage amount demanded from it was only Rs 83.70 crore.

The company pleaded that DDA had issued a notice to the firm to deposit only Rs 83.70 crore.