[ad_1]
1. Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned
counsel appearing for parties.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the State Police
Complaints Authority, Maharashtra State, Mumbai (SPCA)
in SPCA/Complaint Case No.164/2024.
3. It is contention of the petitioner that the petitioner
is “A Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC)” which
granted loan of Rs.25.00 lacs to “M/s.G.B.Enterprises”
through Prop. Mrs.Neeta M.Dawda and other three co-
accused by sanction letter dated 5.6.2023 for business
…..3/-
Judgment
424 wp174.25
purpose on the basis of Income Tax Returns and Balance
Sheet signed by the co-accused. On due execution of
documents, loan was sanctioned on 7.6.2023. However,
said debtors hatched conspiracy and fraudulently induced
complainant to sanction business loan of Rs.25.00 lacs by
misrepresenting financial credibility of
“M/s.G.B.Enterprises” showing annual turn over of
Rs.5.00 crores, assets at Rs.44.00 lacs falsely and Balance
Sheets are also prepared accordingly. As per contentions
of the petitioner, Director of the said company and the
company are the willful defaulters and not paid
installments as agreed. It was willful default which is
recognized as an offence in view of RBI’s Master Circular
on Willful Default. Moreover, the company and Directors
have diverted loan amount for other purposes without
knowledge of the petitioner and thus they committed the
offence of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of
…..4/-
[ad_2]
Source link