Partly allowed

Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. State Bank of India

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Jul 2017CWP/1722/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by ordering the petitioners to approach the Bank for the one-time settlement scheme within one week. The respondents were directed to decide within four weeks. Coercive action was stayed pending decision. Maintainability and merit were left open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to approach respondents for one-time settlement within one week; respondents to decide within four weeks; liberty to approach Court again; maintainability and merit left open.

Kuldeep Kumar Gupta Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1722 of 2017 Date of Decision: 27.07.2017

¶3

____ Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Gupta and Anr. …..Petitioners.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Bank of India and Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our

¶13

attention to an order dated 31.5.2017, passed by this Court in Naresh Dutt Shandilya v. Authorized Officer, District Manager, H.P. Cooperative Bank and Ors. CWP No. 1153 of 2017. It is contended that the petitioners are ready and willing to approach the respondents-Bank and their petition be disposed of in terms of the order passed in CWP No. 1153 of 2017 (supra). As such, we dispose of the petition on the following terms:

¶14

a) Petitioners shall approach the respondents for availing benefit under one time settlement scheme. This, they shall positively do within a period of one week.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

…2…

¶17

b) Appropriate authority/respondents shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶18

c) All codal formalities, if any, shall also be completed by the petitioners within one week.

¶19

d) As is so stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, till and so long, decision is not taken by the appropriate authority/respondents, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶20

e) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court/appropriate Court, if so required and desired on the same cause of action.

¶21

f) The question of maintainability and merit of the petition is left open. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

¶22

accordingly.

¶23

( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Sita Ram

Parveen Bhatia Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Ajeet Kumar and Another

Madan Lal Vs Adithela Jai Vara Prasad

Bali Devi Vs Jagdish Chander

Amar Basant Raajbansh Vs State of Hp and Others