One Time Settlement - The Legal Chamber

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Says :Withdrawing a Case from Supreme Court Has a Cost: No Second Chance

This Supreme Court judgement reaffirms that if a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is unconditionally withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, a second SLP challenging the same order is not maintainable. This principle, drawn from Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC, is grounded in public policy to prevent bench-hunting and ensure litigation finality. An appeal against an order merely dismissing a review petition is also not maintainable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Satheesh V.K., was a borrower who had defaulted on a loan from the Federal Bank, leading the bank to classify the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. Challenging this action, Satheesh filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Cou...

SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment

5Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

SBI Wins Case: Supreme Court Rules OTS Application Invalid Without Upfront Payment

The Supreme Court held that a borrower's failure to comply with the mandatory upfront payment requirement under a One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme renders the application incomplete and not entitled to processing. The Court further ruled that, in judicial review, an administrative order of rejection can be upheld on an alternative legal ground apparent from the record, provided the affected party is granted a fair opportunity to respond. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Tanya Energy Enterprises, availed credit facilities from the State Bank of India (SBI) by mortgaging seven properties but subsequently defaulted on its repayment obligations. After its account was classified as a non-performing asset, SBI initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. A prior One-Time Settlement...

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

18Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹15 to ₹50 lakhs, balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's qualifications and potential to earn. The ruling underscores that alimony is not merely sustenance but must provide financial security commensurate with the marital standard of living. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the wife, M.V. Leelavathi, against a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the dissolution of her marriage to Dr. C.R. Swamy on grounds of cruelty and confirmed a permanent alimony award of ₹15,00,000. The couple married in February 2009 and the marriage remained childless. The husband, a doctor, filed for divorce in 2011 alleging mental cruelty. The wife contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal r...

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

13Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...