7 months ago
1
The Bombay High Court has quashed transgression proceedings against erstwhile ICICI Bank CEO and MD Chanda Kochhar, erstwhile Deputy MD Dr. Nachiket Mor, ineligible section member Vasudeo Kulkarni, and Pune subdivision manager Asavari Patankar successful a lawsuit alleging evasion of octroi connected golden bullion imports into Pune metropolis limits. The ailment against ICICI Bank, however, will proceed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Pune.
Octroi is simply a section taxation levied by municipal corporations connected goods brought into metropolis limits for use, consumption, oregon sale. Under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (BPMC) Act, 1949, nonaccomplishment to wage octroi attracts penalties nether Section 398, portion Section 401 provides for vicarious liability of institution officials if they are shown to be liable for the offence.
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, delivering judgement connected December 8, observed that the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) failed to make “any relation specifically attributed to immoderate of the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5” successful its complaint. “Although the statutory authorities of the BPMC Act attracts the doctrine of vicarious liability, prosecution against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 cannot proceed successful the lack of immoderate averment ascribing a circumstantial relation attributed to them. There is nary specified pleading successful the full complaint,” the tribunal said.
The case dates backmost to October 31, 2009, erstwhile PMC filed transgression lawsuit nether Sections 398 and 401 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, alleging that ICICI Bank imported golden bullions and coins betwixt April 2006 and August 2009 without paying octroi. The octroi payable was computed astatine ₹1.27 crore, and notices were issued connected September 11 and October 3, 2009. The JMFC issued summons connected November 20, 2009.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Faisal Ali Sayyed argued that “in the lack of immoderate averments successful the Petition against Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, they cannot beryllium held liable for the alleged penalty.” He submitted that the JMFC’s bid was “based connected surmises and conjectures without immoderate grounds against the Petitioners.”
Advocate Abhijit P. Kulkarni, for PMC, contended that “the offence is implicit arsenic soon arsenic the goods crossed the Corporation limits and determination is nary request of thing other to beryllium done to allege contravention.” He relied connected P.D. Kashikar v. State of Maharashtra to reason that “Section 398 of the BPMC Act is simply a statutory offence and immoderate bully volition expressed by accused is wholly irrelevant erstwhile the goods are imported without outgo of octroi.”
The tribunal reproduced Sections 398 and 401 of the BPMC Act and referred to Supreme Court rulings connected vicarious liability, including National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla. “Vicarious liability connected the portion of a idiosyncratic indispensable beryllium pleaded and proved and not inferred,” the judgement said.
“In presumption of the facts and circumstances of the contiguous lawsuit and the settled ineligible position, the ailment bearing Criminal Case No. 236 of 2009 against Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is quashed and acceptable aside.
Consequently, the summons dated November 20, 2009, issued to the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is also quashed. Complaint against the Petitioner No.1-Bank remains as it is,” Justice Gokhale ordered, adding that “all contentions earlier the JMFC, Pune are near open.”
