Naresh T. Jain vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Held
The Court held that the factual narration in its previous order dated 28.11.2024 contained errors and was more apposite for a co-accused. The Court found that the allegations against the present applicant, Naresh Tikamchand Jain, were slightly different from those against the co-accused, Anil Omprakash Khandelwal. Consequently, the Court ordered the deletion of paragraph 4 of the previous order and directed the insertion of new paragraphs detailing the complaints from Laxmi Vilas Bank (loan of Rs. 35 Crores) and Axis Bank (loan of Rs. 1056.25 Crores) against M/s Cox and Kings and others, alleging conspiracy, presentation of bogus documents, and cheating. Paragraph 5 of the previous order was also corrected to provide a more accurate backdrop concerning the applicant's alleged involvement in the diversion of funds, including defaults in GST and TDS payments by CKL, and the appointment of a forensic auditor. The corrected order was to be uploaded to the website. The praecipe for speaking to the minutes was disposed of.
Facts
The applicant, Naresh Tikamchand Jain, sought correction of a previous High Court order dated 28.11.2024, which had disposed of his bail applications. The applicant contended that the factual narration in the order was more applicable to a co-accused, Anil Omprakash Khandelwal. The Court examined the bail applications and found that the allegations against the present applicant were indeed slightly different from those against the co-accused. The Court had previously relied on an order concerning the co-accused when allowing the applicant's bail applications. The correction involved deleting paragraph 4 and inserting new paragraphs detailing complaints from Laxmi Vilas Bank and Axis Bank regarding loans obtained by M/s Cox and Kings and subsequent defaults. Paragraph 5 was also corrected to reflect the applicant's alleged involvement in the diversion of funds.
Key Issues
1. Whether the factual narration in the order dated 28.11.2024 was accurate concerning the allegations against the applicant, Naresh Tikamchand Jain, as opposed to a co-accused, Anil Omprakash Khandelwal? (Mixed question of fact and law) Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that the factual narrative in the previous order was more suited to a co-accused and needed correction to accurately reflect the allegations against him. They sought to replace or amend specific paragraphs of the order. Revenue/State's Argument: The State did not present any arguments against the correction of the factual narration. The Court itself reviewed the applications and found discrepancies, leading to the correction.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the context of legal provisions being interpreted or applied, beyond general reference to statutory payments like GST and TDS.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
P1_BA_4436 & 4437_24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4436 OF 2024 AND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4437 OF 2024 Naresh Tikamchand Jain … … Respondent Ms. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Ms. Sayee Sawant, i/b. Vidhii Partners for applicant. Ms. Rutuja Anil Ambekar, APP for respondent-State in both applications.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 02nd DECEMBER, 2024 P.C. : . Not on board. Mentioned by way of praecipe, for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 28.11.2024. 2. By the said order, this Court disposed of two bail applications of the very same applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant in both the applications, submits that the aforesaid order needs to be corrected to the extent of the narration of facts, as the narration of facts in the order dated 28.11.2024 is more apposite for co-accused Anil Omprakash Khandelwal. In that light, it is suggested that paragraph No.4 of the said order may have to be replaced and some corrections may have to be made in paragraph No.5. 4. In this context, this Court considered the contents of Bail Application Nos.4436 of 2024 and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.