Disposed

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh v. Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jharkhand HC6 Nov 2019WPC/2750/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a withdrawal of a writ petition where the petitioner sought relief against a bank regarding recovery proceedings and mortgage documents. The court noted a compromise but conditioned relief on fulfillment of compromise terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and interlocutory application allowed to be withdrawn.

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam… — Banking and Recovery | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2750 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Famica Press Industries (P) Limited, through one of its Director Jairam

¶5

Prasad Singh ……… Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bank of India having its head office at Star House C-5 “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex

¶8

Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Regional Office, Jamshedpur Zone, Bistupur

¶9

Chief Manager, Bank of India, Telco Town Branch

¶10

………. Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶13

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate ---

¶14

6/06.11.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder a direction has been sought for upon the respondent Bank to accept the compromise amount of Rs.12 Crore in terms of letter having reference no.TLT/ADV/18-19/34 dated 25.06.2018.

¶15

Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that he has filed one interlocutory application being I.A.No.10241 of 2019 for withdrawal of the writ petition.

¶16

The said interlocutory application, is taken on record.

¶17

The prayer made in the said interlocutory application for withdrawal of the instant writ petition on the ground of acceptance of compromise proposal made by the petitioner before the respondentBank of India, which according to the petitioner, has been accepted and in terms thereof, he is seeking to withdraw this writ petition.

¶18

Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the matter has been compromised, therefore, litigation pending before the Recovery Officer under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in pursuance to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, is also required to be dropped and further, original document which is lying before the Bank by way of mortgage or collateral security, is required to be returned back.

¶19

Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank, has submitted by referring to the annexure-1 annexed to the interlocutory application that the matter has been compromised but as yet, the terms of the compromise, is to be acted upon by the petitioner by making payment of the further amount as agreed in between the Bank as also the petitioner.

¶20

He further submits that since the compromise has been arrived at in between the petitioner and the respondent Bank and if the terms of the compromise would be acted upon, there is no reason to pursue the recovery proceeding and keeping the original document with the possession of the Bank.

¶21

This Court after considering the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties, deem it fit and proper to allow the instant interlocutory application by permitting the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition.

¶22

The question of dropping of the proceeding pending pertaining to the subject matter of the present writ petition or returning of the original documents pertaining to mortgage or collateral security which depend upon the compliance of the terms and conditions of the compromise.

¶23

Needless to say that if the terms and conditions of the compromise is acted upon the petitioner, the respondent Bank will take necessary decision in this regard.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

I.A.No.10241 of 2019 also stands disposed of.

¶26

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶27

Rohit/-

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh v. Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Famica Press Industries P Limited through Jairam Prasad Singh v. Bank of India through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

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

Bishnu Kumar Singh And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Abhoy Enterprises through Its Partner Sri Binay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department

Mohasi Bibi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Saro Manjhian Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jyanti Munda Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors.

Indrajeet Singh Saluja Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director