Disposed¶11

Binayak Kumar v. Punjab National Bank through Its Chief Manager

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2025WPC/594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court (Rajesh Shankar, J.), 16.07.2025, W.P.(C) 594/2024: writ petition of auction purchaser Binayak Kumar against Punjab National Bank (Bokaro Steel City) disposed of after the Bank refunded the principal amount deposited for the auction purchase; petitioner had been dispossessed pursuant to a Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi order on the Borrower's application; claim for compensation for loss of business not adjudicated — petitioner directed to pursue it under law; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

No monetary relief awarded by this Order. The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue the additional amount claimed for loss of business etc. through appropriate recourse permissible under law; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stood closed. ¶11

Binayak Kumar Vs Punjab National Bank through Its Chief Manager — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was dispossessed from the property in question in terms with an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi passed on the Borrower's application after his auction purchase, is entitled to monetary compensation from the respondent-Bank for the resulting loss of business. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

No monetary compensation for the additional amount claimed on account of loss of business etc. arising from the petitioner's dispossession was granted by this Order; the petitioner was expressly left at liberty to take appropriate recourse towards the same as permissible under law.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and considering that the respondent-Bank had already returned the principal amount paid by the petitioner for the auction purchase of the property in question, the Judge saw no reason to further proceed in the present matter and accordingly disposed of the writ petition.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi — W.P.(C) No.594 of 2024, Binayak Kumar v. Punjab National Bank; Order No.07 dated 16.07.2025 (Rajesh Shankar, J.). During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-Bank returned to the petitioner — the auction purchaser of the property in question — the principal amount deposited by him. The petitioner had earlier been dispossessed of that property in terms with an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on an application filed by the Borrower, and had claimed monetary compensation for the consequent loss of business. Finding no reason to proceed further once the principal had been refunded, the Court disposed of the writ petition without awarding any compensation, expressly leaving the petitioner at liberty to seek the additional amount claimed through appropriate recourse permissible under law; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stood closed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:19302

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.594 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Binayak Kumar, son of Late Braj Kishore Kumar, Resident of Plot No. B-1, Phase-I, Industrial Area (Near Old UBI), Balidih, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District-Bokaro.

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-VersusPunjab National Bank, through its Chief Manager, having its office at Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, Town and District-Bokaro, Jharkhand. .......... Respondent.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. P.S.A. Pati, Advocate ----- Order No.07 Date: 16.07.2025

¶9

Mr. P.S.A. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the principal amount deposited by the petitioner (auction purchaser) with respect to the property in question has already been returned to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was dispossessed from the property in question in terms with the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on an application filed by the Borrower, he suffered loss of business and, thus, deserves to be monetarily compensated. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the respondent-Bank has already returned the principal amount paid by the petitioner with respect to the auction purchase of the property in question, I see no reason to further proceed in the present matter.

¶11

The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶12

¶13

2025:JHHC:19302

¶14

So far as the additional amount claimed by the petitioner for loss of business etc. due to his dispossession from the property in question is concerned, he is at liberty to take appropriate recourse towards the same as permissible under law.

¶15

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands closed.

¶16

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶17

Rohit /

¶18

Binayak Kumar v. Punjab National Bank through Its Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binayak Kumar v. Punjab National Bank through Its Chief Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Road Construction Department Vs Kumod Kumar Thakur

M/S Bhagwan Stone Works, through Its Authorized Signatory / Partner Namely Bhagwan Bhagat, Vs the State of Jharkhand, Represented through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hazaribagh, Vs Urmila Devi

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Shri Khatu Shyam Udyog through Its Proprietor Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Jbvnl) through Its Managing Director

Chandan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand