In a decisive move on January 3, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of the sentence for an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused, Satish P. Bhatt, former Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s.Astral Glass Private Limited, and the Vice-Chairman, Vishwanath Ramakrishna Nayak, were handed a ten-month sentence with a cumulative liability of Rs.5 crores by the Trial Court.
Despite a settlement agreement where the appellants committed to pay Rs.4,63,50,000/- to the complainant, the Court expressed its dismay at the prolonged litigation, spanning nearly 16 years. The Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal criticized the nonchalant attitude of the accused towards financial responsibilities and court orders, emphasizing the erosion of judicial efficacy.
The accused had sought an extension for payment even after the High Court’s explicit direction against it. Subsequently, the suspension of the sentence and bail was revoked due to non-compliance with the settlement. The Supreme Court, after a meticulous examination of the undertaking, emphasized that the agreed-upon amount had not been paid, leading to the withdrawal of interim protection.
In a resolute decision, the Court dismissed the appeal, imposing a hefty cost of Rs 5 lakhs. Furthermore, the appellants were directed to surrender within four weeks. The Supreme Court unequivocally instructed the High Court to ensure full compliance with the undertaking and to compensate the complainant for the prolonged harassment.
This landmark decision in the case of SATISH P. BHATT vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of disregarding financial commitments and judicial directives.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
