Disposed

Rishi Raj v. Punjab & Sind Bank

Delhi HC10 Feb 2017W.P.(C)/1153/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a petition praying for refund of deposited funds with interest. Counsel for the bank submitted that the petitioner's representation was replied to. The court noted the gross delay plea and disposed of the petition along with pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of along with pending applications; petitioner at liberty to seek remedies if aggrieved by the bank's decision.

Rishi Raj Vs Punjab & Sind Bank — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1153/2017 & C.M. Nos. 5258-59/2017.

¶4

RISHI RAJ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi with Mr. Shariq Ansari and Mr. Abhilash Attri, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

PUNJAB & SIND BANK ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶8

O R D E R % 10.02.2017

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent/Bank to refund a sum of Rs.81,02,750/- deposited by him along with interest @ 24% from the date of deposit, till realisation.

¶10

The petitioner claims that in the earlier petition filed by him against respondent/Bank [WP(C) 6584/2008], counsel for the petitioner had stated that he had made a representation to the respondent/Bank for refund of the said amount, but the Bank had not considered it. Accordingly, the respondent/Bank was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and give a response. Learned counsel states that thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 11.2.2009, but the same was not replied to by the respondent/Bank.

¶11

Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, counsel for the respondent/Bank, who appears

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

WP(C) 1153/2017

¶14

on advance notice, starts by submitting that the post dated cheque of Rs.1 crores that the petitioner had deposited with the respondent/Bank was dishonoured for ‘insufficient funds’. As for the representation dated 11.2.2009 submitted by the petitioner to respondent/Bank, the same was duly considered and replied to vide letter dated 01.4.2009 dispatched by registered post. She hands over a copy of the aforesaid letter addressed by the respondent/Bank to the petitioner with a copy furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record.

¶15

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision conveyed by the respondent/Bank in the said letter then, he is at liberty to seek his remedies, as per law. At that time, the court will examine the plea taken by counsel for the respondent/Bank as to the gross delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court for relief.

¶16

The petition is disposed of along with the pending applications.

¶17

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 10, 2017 ap

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

WP(C) 1153/2017

Rishi Raj v. Punjab & Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi Raj v. Punjab & Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North East Tribal Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India Vs Munni Lal & Ors.

Brij Lal Dua Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Anami Dass and Anr. Vs Gaon Sabha Village Chhawla and Anr.

Chand Sahu Bala and Ors. Vs Ministry of Human Resource Development and Ors.

Uma Shankar Sitani and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Balraj Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ajab Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Rakesh Brothers Vs Pawan Bansal

Sahab Alam Qureshi Vs Dr Yasin Quresi

Shabab Alam Qureshi & Anr. Vs Dr Yasin Quresi

Bilal Ahmed Vs Mohd.Faisal Khan & Ors.

Zumrud Vs Irshadullah & Ors.

N.D.M.C. Vs Alokit Exports P.Ltd.