[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ramesh Satpal Nagpal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 29 April, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:20487-DB
pmk 91-apeal-1350-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1350 OF 2024
Ramesh Satpal Nagpal ]
Age : 61 Years, Occ. : Business ]
Proprietor of Shree Radhhey Trading Co. ]
Having office at 4/624, Jaffar Nawaz ]
Pulsejet Mandi, Saharanpur, ]
Uttar Pradesh : 247 001 ] ...Appellant
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra ]
(Vide EOW, Unit-V, Mumbai) ]
2. Competent Authority ]
(Appointed under MPID Act, 1999) ]
3. Directorate of Enforcement ]
having office 4th Floor, Kaiser-I-Hind ]
Building, Opp. Grand Hotel, Currimbhoy ]
Road, Ballard Pier, Zone-1, Mumbai - 01 ]
4. National Spot Exchange Ltd. ]
Having office at Malkani Chambers ]
1st Floor, Off Nehru Road, Near Hotel ]
Orchid, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 99 ] ... Respondents
Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Leena Patil, SPP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Prashant Mishra a/w Mr. Bharat Jadhav, Ms. Chahat Modi,
Ms. Purva Birla, Ms. Ishita Bhaiya, Ms. Krish Kariya, Advocate for
Respondent No.3-ED.
Mr. Arvind Lakhawat a/w Mr. Vinit Vaidya i/by MZM Legal for Respondent
No.4.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th April, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th April, 2026.
Digitally
1/5
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.04.29
19:07:41
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 03:12:56 :::
pmk 91-apeal-1350-2024.doc
JUDGMENT (PER : KAMAL KHATA, J.) :
1) By this Appeal, the Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned
Order dated 16th October, 2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, MPID
in Misc. Application No.1444 of 2023 in Spl. Case No.1 of 2014.
2) Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Appellant, submits that, the
Appellant is the proprietor of the Shree Radhey Trading Company, engaged
in the business of trading and manufacturing of spices for over 30 years.
The Appellant company became member of NSEL in September, 2011 and
continued until 31st July, 2013, when its membership was cancelled /
suspended. The Appellant is arraigned as an accused No.59 in Special MPID
Case No.1 of 2014 arising from C.R. No.89 of 2013.
3) A crime was registered on 30 th September, 2013 at M.R.A.
Marg Police Station, Mumbai, at the instance of one Pankaj R. Saraf, for
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474,
477(A) of Indian Penal Code against the Directors and key management
persons of NSEL, FTIL and 25 Borrowers/Trading Members of NSEL, along
with certain brokers of NSEL and others. The said investigation was
subsequently transferred to the E.O.W., Unit-5, Mumbai vide C.R. No.89 of
2013 whereupon Sections 3 and 4 of MPID came to be applied by the
E.O.W.
pmk 91-apeal-1350-2024.doc
3.1) Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that, several
accused were arrested and thereafter, released on bail by the Special MPID
Court as well as by this Court on regular Bail as well as on Anticipatory
Bail. During the course of investigation, various properties were attached by
the investigation agencies under the provisions of the MPID Act and PML
Act.
3.2) He submitted that, during the hearing of the bail Application,
the Appellant had made an oral proposal to deposit an amount of Rs.25
lakhs quarterly, upon which the Respondent No.2 was to hand over the
goods, without admitting any liability. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant
deposited an amount of Rs.29 lakhs with the Respondent No.2 on 13 th April,
2016. It is submitted that, they are not aware about what is the present
status of the said fixed deposit.
3.3) He submitted that, the Appellant was arrested on 26 th February,
2016 and released on bail by the Special MPID Court on 30 th March, 2016
subject to certain conditions.
3.4) Despite having deposited Rs.29 lakhs and having addressed
various mails to Respondent No.2, calling upon them to handover the
goods, the same was entirely ignored. Learned Advocate submitted that, in
this backdrop, the Appellant filed objections in respect of the property
notified at serial No.1 in Exhibit 74 being made absolute under the MPID
Act. The said objections are pending before the Trial Court.
pmk 91-apeal-1350-2024.doc
3.5) He further submitted that, pursuant to the attachment of
property being made absolute by the Special MPID Court Order, as well as,
by an Order of the Supreme Court Committee, the said property put up for
auction thrice by publishing advertisements in newspapers. The Bid Price
and Reserve Price was shown as 48 lakhs. However, despite having put up
for auction thrice, not a single buyer had come forward to bid for the said
property.
3.6) Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that, the Appellant
is willing to deposit the differential amount before this Hon'ble Court for
release of the property. However, the said application for release was
rejected by the impugned Order. In these circumstances, the Appellant has
preferred the present Appeal.
4) Mr. Arvind Lakhawat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4
opposed the Appeal. He drew our attention to paragraph No.12 of the
impugned Order and submitted that the valuation given by HDFC Quicker
Realty was incorrect, as it was based on the property being an agricultural
land. However, from the valuation carried out by Notiyal and Associates, is
vastly different as the said property is stated to be a commercial land.
4.1) He submitted that, while the valuation by HDFC Quicker Realty
was Rs.48 lakhs, the valuation by Notiyal and Associates was
Rs.12,55,56,352/-. He accordingly submitted that, the Appeal deserves to
be rejected.
pmk 91-apeal-1350-2024.doc
5) We have heard Mr. Yadav, Advocate for the Appellant, Ms. Patil,
SPP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State, Mr. Mishra for Respondent No.3 and
Mr. Lakhawat for Respondent No.4. Perused record.
6) We find merit in the arguments of Mr. Lakhawat. On the other
hand, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellant that, the
Trial Court's Order is without any reasons. It is undisputed that the
Appellant was arrested in connection with MPID Special Case No. 1 of
2014. The subject property was one amongst nine other properties of which
auction was permitted. It is also not in dispute that the MPID Act has no
provision regarding release of property in favour of the owner, after an
order is passed permitting auction. We find no reason to permit the
Appellant to bid for the said property merely because the said property
remained unsold though put up for auction for three times. We find no
reason to disbelieve the valuation given by Notiyal and Associates and
consideration of the same by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Trial Court
was right in rejecting the Application upon the Appellant securing an
amount of Rs 48 lakhs when the value was Rs.12,55,56,352/- as per the
other valuation report.
7) Accordingly, we find no merits in the Appeal.
8) In view of the aforesaid, the Appeal is dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
