The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The petitioner sought one-time settlement for a loan account, but the court noted his failure to deposit the required amount as previously directed in earlier proceedings, rendering this petition incompletable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NO.25573 OF 2017
20.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K. M.H.Niyamati, learned counsel fo
r the opposite parties-Bank.
This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the Branch Manager, Bank
of Baroda, Keonjhar (opposite party no.2), to settle the loan account of the petitioner by way
of one time settlement by reducing some more amount.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in WPC No.17162 of 2016 and vide ord
er dated 03.7.2017, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs
along with an application for one time settlement within six weeks hence. Subsequently, as the
petitioner could not deposit the said amount, he filed an application for extension of time,
which was registered as Misc.Case No.15115 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.
8.2017 granting two weeks further time to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.3
lakhs. It is submitted that till date, the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount, as ha
d been directed in WPC No.17162 of 2016.
In view of the earlier order of this Court dated 03.7.2017, passed in WPC No.17162 of
2016 and the subsequent order dated 24.8.2017, passed in Misc.Case No.15115 of 2017, the prese
nt writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.C.PARIJA, J.)
(D.DASH,J.)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable given that the petitioner failed to comply with earlier court orders regarding one-time settlement.
Whether the court should grant a fresh direction for one-time settlement or dismiss the petition for non-compliance.
Petitioner
Bank of Baroda, Keonjhar (Opposite party no.2)
S.C. Parija
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court