Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

m.m. das, j.1. the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956 represented through its managing director - abhishek kar. the petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the state bank of india, chhatrapur branch. the bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per annexure-2 to the petition.it is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the investigating officer in crime branch p.s. case no. 13 of 2007, corresponding to g.r. case no. 2073 of 2007 pending before the court of the learned s.d.j.m., bhubaneswar, directed the state bank of india,.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

M.M. Das, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '536498',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Orissa',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
			'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">M.M. Das, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '536498',
		(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs State of Orissa - Citation 536498 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '536498',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent  Appeal  Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., -  Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act.

Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal  Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
 -  The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso. It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Orissa',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-08-12',
		'deposition' => 'Appeal allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' M.M. Das, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>M.M. Das, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.</p><p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.</p><p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.</p><p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.</p><p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.</p><p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.</p><p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.</p><p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.</p><p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.</p><p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.</p><p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.</p><p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(II)OLR888',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Orissa',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '536498',
	(int) 1 => 'agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/536498/agrani-export-private-limited-vs-state-orissa'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>M.M. Das, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Managing Director - Abhishek Kar. The petitioner - company applied for a term loan and packing credit loan to the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch. The bank authorities, being satisfied and after following due procedure, sanctioned credit facility on 13.7.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the petition.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>It is the case of the petitioner-company that while the petitioner-company was operating the said loan account and enjoying the credit facility, the Investigating Officer in Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 13 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2073 of 2007 pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, directed the State Bank of India, Chhatrapur Branch to stop operation of the loan account of the petitioner-company and accordingly, the petitioner-company has been prevented from operating the said loan account.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. This fact was intimated to the petitioner-company by the Chief Manager of the Bank. The petitioner-company, thereafter, found that the said criminal case has been initiated against the Proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. In the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted in the said case against the accused persons and the said Proprietorship concern, who, according to the petitioner-company, are in no way connected with the petitioner-company. Being aggrieved by the action of the freezing of the loan account of the petitioner-company, it has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') seeking a direction to the bank to allow the petitioner-company to operate the account.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-company as well as the learned Counsel for the State in extenso.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. During the course of hearing, the question arose as to whether action under Section 102 of the Code can be taken against the petitioner-company by freezing its loan account though neither the said petitioner-company nor its Directors are accused persons in the criminal case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>Though learned Counsel for the State submitted that the loan account has nexus with the allegation made against M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, no document has been produced before this Court in support of the said contention. Learned Counsel for the State further contended that the loan has been granted on obtaining securities from the Directors of the petitioner-company and the said amount has been obtained by the Directors from the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits. The fixed deposits which have been offered as security for the loan were also provided by the Proprietor of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. Though the learned Counsel for the State was directed to obtain specific instruction in support of the above contention, more specifically, the date of the said fixed deposit receipts, but no such materials have been produced before this Court.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>It appears from the sanction letter of the Bank that co-lateral securities of immovable properties as well as term deposit receipt amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten lakhs) standing in the name of Shri Ganga Narayan Kar have been offered as security for the loan. A copy of the said term deposit receipt was produced by the learned Counsel for the State from which it appears that the said term deposit was made on 18.7.2007. However, nothing has been brought before this Court as to how the said loan account has a direct nexus with the crime alleged to have been committed in the criminal case by M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Section 102 of the Code requires that the properties sought to be seized or frozen must be either stolen properties or they should have been found to have some nexus with the alleged offence which is under investigation by the concerned Police Officer. Intention of freezing a bank account during the course of investigation is not to allow the account holder to operate the said account and thereby withdraw the amounts from the said account. It is, therefore, clear that money in deposit in a bank account, if has any nexus with the alleged .offence can be ceased or the account may be frozen. A loan account is always an account of liability of the loanee and the money transacted in such account belongs to the Bank lend to the borrower, to be repaid as per the loan agreement. The said amounts in the loan account which are available to be withdrawn cannot be construed to be as asset of the loanee.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>6. In the facts of the instant case, therefore, the prosecution intended that the term deposit receipt offered as a security for the loan should not be encashed. However, the Bank advancing the loan has the first charge over the term deposit receipt, which has been given as a security for the loan advanced.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>In view of the above discussion, it is found that the Investigating Officer by exercising power under Section 102 of the Code could not freezed the loan account of the petitioner-company, rather it could have directed the bank authorities not to get the term deposit encashed, which was given as security for the loan which is alleged to be the property of M/s. Anu Nuts and Fruits, the Proprietor of which firm, is an accused in the criminal case.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>7. In view of the above, this Court finds that the action of freezing the loan account of the petitioner-company cannot be sustained in law and, accordingly, directs that the petitioner-company will be permitted to operate the loan account, which has been freezed.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The CRLMC is accordingly allowed.<p>',
	(int) 14 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 15
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Criminal
Court	Orissa High Court
Decided On	Aug-12-2008
Judge	M.M. Das, J.
Reported in	2008(II)OLR888
Appellant	Agrani Export Private Limited
Respondent	State of Orissa
Disposition	Appeal allowed

Agrani Export Private Limited Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment