Disposed

Madan Lal Radhu v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Delhi HC18 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/7372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of two writ petitions after recording an undertaking from the petitioner to pay ₹10 crores by July 21, 2018, and hand over property possession to the Receiver failing which, physical possession would be taken with police assistance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 10 crores by July 21 and hand over possession; otherwise Receiver takes possession with police aid.

Madan Lal Radhu Vs Canara Bank and Ors. — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~61 & 62

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) Nos. 7372/2018 & 7373/2018

¶4

MADAN LAL RADHU ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Krishendu Dutta, Mr. Aditya and Mr. Ashish Singh Baghel, Advocates.

¶6

Versus

¶7

CANARA BANK AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocates for Canara Bank.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶9

O R D E R % 18.07.2018

¶10

W.P. (C) No.7372/2018 & C.M. No.28185/2018 (stay) W.P. (C) No.7373/2018 & C.M. No.28187/2018 (stay)

¶11

After some hearing, counsel for the petitioner states that Rs.10 crores would be paid on or before 11 A.M. on 21^st July, 2018, failing which the petitioner would hand over physical possession of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of property No. C-681, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to the Receiver.

¶12

Petitioner would file a written undertaking in this Court by 11 A.M. on 19^th July, 2018, affirming the statement made in the Court by the counsel on instructions.

¶13

This statement, we would observe, has been made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and the respondents in the Securitisation Application.

¶14

Counsel for the respondent financial institution state that they are satisfied with the statement but the petitioner must abide by the commitment and also the undertaking given to the Court and accepted by the Court.

¶15

We clarify that in case the petitioner does not abide by the undertaking given in the Court or fails to file the written undertaking, the Receiver would be entitled to immediately take physical possession of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of property No. C-681, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.

¶16

In case of non-compliance and obstruction, the Receiver would be entitled to take police help and assistance.

¶17

We would not entertain any application for extension of time and modification of this order.

¶18

Recording the aforesaid, the writ petitions are disposed of. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.

¶19

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶20

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶21

JULY 18, 2018 NA/VKR

Madan Lal Radhu v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal Radhu v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Santosh Sangar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Gyanender Kumar Vs Land and Building Deparment

Anurag Gupta (Minor) through Raghupati Gupta Vs Mayur Public School & Anr.

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Honble Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Maggie Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Director General,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, & Ors.

Guru Kirpa Overseas Vs the Additional Director General,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, & Ors.

Mgt.of M/S.W.S.Industries Vs M.Vishwanathan & Anr.

National Coop.Con.F.O I.Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

R K Sehgal Vs Canara Bank

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Meeta Gutgutia

India Lease Development Ltd. Vs UOI & Ors.

Jyoti Samajik Sewa Sanstha & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shiv Polymers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 Vs M/S Premier Polyfilm Ltd.