Krishnarao Vithalrao Bagale vs. Union Of India

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Hima Kohli, R. Mahadevan
Case Status:Pending
Order Date:25 Mar 2025
CNR:SCIN010364452023

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Order Issued After Hearing

Purpose:

Fixed Date by Court

Before:

Hon'ble Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Hon'ble Prashant Kumar Mishra

Stage:

AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES

Remarks:

List On (Date) [23-04-2025]

Listed On:

25 Mar 2025

In:

Judge

Category:

UNKNOWN

Interlocutory Applications:

183211/2023,183216/2023,

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

ITEM NO.16

COURT NO.17

SECTION IX

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) $No(s)$ . 22076/2023

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-11-2022 in WP No. 5120/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at <pre>Bombay at Aurangabad]</pre>

KRISHNARAO VITHALRAO BAGALE

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondent $(s)$

(IA No. 183216/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT:IA No. 183211/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date: 25-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

  • CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
  • For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, AOR Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kriti Dang, Adv.
  • For Respondent(s) Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, some factual issue cropped up on which the Court would like to get a clarification from the Bank.

  1. The petitioner claims to have got the information under the ™™™™ to Information Act, 2005 about whether the loan accounts which had been allowed to be opened by the petitioner, resulted in actual loss to the bank, which indicates that the same have been duly satisfied by the concerned loanees.

3. However, learned counsel for the bank submits that even the said list does not account for the entire anticipated loss of Rs.1.66 crores.

4. In view of the difference between the two sides on facts, let the Bank file an affidavit bringing on record the actual position with regard to the loanees, the persons to whom the petitioner was instrumental in giving loan, as mentioned in the charge memo, and what is the position of such loan accounts.

5. Accordingly, as prayed for by learned counsel for the parties, the matter be listed on 23.04.2025.

6. In the meantime, learned counsel for the Bank may also indicate to the Court as to what would be a tentative amount which the petitioner could get, if his prayer for compassionate allowance before the Authority is allowed.

(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANJALI PANWAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(7) - 23 Apr 2025

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(6) - 25 Mar 2025

ROP - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(5) - 18 Mar 2025

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(4) - 18 Feb 2025

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(3) - 4 Mar 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(2) - 18 Jan 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(1) - 18 Sept 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view