Disposed

Arvind Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Jharkhand HC18 Aug 2021WPC/2716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjourned an auction of the petitioner's property and directed the bank to retract the auction notice pending payment of outstanding settlement amounts and a fresh proposal under the OTS scheme.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the auction notice relating to the petitioner's property stayed pending deposit of instalments and submission of a fresh settlement proposal.

Arvind Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 2716 of 2021

¶3

Arvind Sharma ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

¶7

Bank of Baroda, through its Managing Director, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

¶8

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Govindpur Branch, Dhanbad

¶9

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dhanbad Branch, Dhanbad

¶10

The Regional Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, Bank of Baroda, Doranda, Ranchi

….. Respondents

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha For the Bank: Mr. P. S. A. S. Pati

¶17

¶18

04/18.08.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the auction notice dated 04.07.2021 published in the local daily newspaper ‘Prabaht Khabar’ for auction of the property of M/s Unique Coal Company (Sl. No.1 of the said auction notice) and upon quashing the notice dated 04.07.2021, the respondent-Bank may be directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the compromise/sanction letter dated 10.07.2021 under the OTS scheme of all seven accounts of M/s Unique Coal Company, M/s A. B. Enterprises and M/S Bhawani Enterprises. The petitioner has also made other related prayers.

¶20

According to the petitioner, he had issued a cheque of Indian Bank bearing No. 120994 dated 10.07.2021 for Rs.2 Lacs in favour of the respondent-Bank as an affront amount as per the compromise entered between the parties under the OTS Scheme. However, the said cheque was returned by the petitioner’s Bank i.e. Indian Bank, the return memo of which did not mention any reason for not honouring the same.

¶21

In the aforesaid factual background, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2021, had directed the respondent-Bank to file counter affidavit disclosing as to for what reason the said cheque issued by the petitioner was returned by his Bank.

¶22

Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, yet no reason for returning the cheque of Rs.2 Lacs by the petitioner’s Bank (Indian Bank) has been disclosed therein.

¶23

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the

¶24

petitioner has sincerely intended to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise entered between the parties under the OTS Scheme and the dispute has arisen only due to return of the cheque of Rs.2 Lacs by his Bank (Indian Bank), he is ready to make payment of Rs.12 Lacs in two instalments against the settlement amount of Rs.42 Lacs for the present. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the first instalment of Rs.4 Lacs will be deposited with the respondent-Bank by the petitioner by 21.08.2021. The second instalment of Rs.8 Lacs will be deposited by the petitioner with the said Bank on or before 31.08.2021.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is ordered that on payment of the said instalments, the petitioner shall be permitted by the respondent-Bank to make a fresh proposal for settlement of the loan accounts in question. On receipt of the said proposal, the respondent-Bank shall take an appropriate decision over the same within a further period of two weeks.

¶26

However, the modalities of payment of the rest amount against the loan accounts in question shall depend upon the settlement which may be arrived between the parties.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid arrangement made, the operation of the impugned auction notice dated 04.07.2021, so far as the same relates to the petitioner’s property, which is said to be rescheduled for today, shall be kept in abeyance till an appropriate decision is taken by the respondent-Bank in relation to the present dispute.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶29

Consequently, I.A. No. 3682/2021 also stands disposed of.

¶30

It is made clear that the present order is being passed considering the peculiar facts of this case and the same will not set any precedence.

¶31

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶32

Satish/-

Arvind Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Home Jail and Disaster Management

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

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Prasadi Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms

Shiv Ratan Prasad Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Ms Beena Hotel through One of Its Partner Mrs Darshana Ajmani Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Pravin Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Kulbinder Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand