This writ petition challenged inaction by a bank regarding a One Time Settlement (O.T.S.) application. The High Court rejected the petition, ruling that the petitioner's long delay and laches in following up on their application rendered the petition unfit for consideration under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp10253.13
krs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.10253 OF 2013
Pundalik Bahirji Ingale : Petitioner V/s. The Karad Janata Sah. Bank Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents
Mr.S.R.Papayya for the Petitioner. Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/b. Mr.V. Deshpande & Co., for Respondent no.1. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.3 & 4.
…. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 06, 2014.
P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respective Respondents.
1 of 2
wp10253.13
krs
2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition should be entertained given the petitioner's delay and laches regarding the One Time Settlement Scheme application.
Whether the Reserve Bank of India's statutory power to direct banks to consider O.T.S. applications overrides the petitioner's delay.
If the petition under Article 226 regarding the consideration of a One Time Settlement application abandoned for years is maintainable.
Pundalik Bahirji Ingale
The Karad Janata Sah. Bank Ltd.
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
