Disposed

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store v. Canara Bank,Regional Office

Orissa HC14 Aug 2020WP(C)/12284/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a bank's demand for full settlement, the High Court directed the petitioner hardware store to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 with the bank within fifteen days to settle dues in full and final settlement. Failure to comply would allow the bank to proceed against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 with the bank within fifteen days for full and final settlement.

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store Vs Canara Bank,Regional Office — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.12284 of 2020

¶2

14.08.2020

¶3

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.

¶4

2. Heard Mr. B. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties-Bank.

¶5

3. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 13.08.2020, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Kakat Chhak, Kendrapara Branch, Kendrapara-opposite party no.3 is present today.

¶6

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Mahavir Hardware Store, represented through its proprietor Mr. Kishore Kumar Behera inter alia with the prayer that the action taken by the Bank-opposite parties under Annexure-1 series along with its consequential action may be quashed and set aside and the opposite parties-Bank may be directed to accept his fresh proposal under One Time Settlement Scheme dated 27.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to re-consider the same for closure of the Cash Credit Loan Account bearing No.3523261000027 by considering his representation under Annexure-7.

¶7

5. This Court on 13.07.2020 passed the following order:-

¶8

“ Heard Mr. B. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties-Bank by Video Conferencing mode.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the one time settlement offered of the petitioner for a sum of

¶10

-2-

¶11

Rs.8,75,000/- was accepted by the Bank and as against which the petitioner deposited Rs.6,00,000/and an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- could not be deposited. In fact, the total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- was due as against that one time settlement for which the petitioner deposited Rs.90,000/- with the Bank on 27.11.2019 for fresh one time settlement. However, the opposite parties-Bank has not permitted the same considering that the earlier one time settlement has lapsed and are now demanding Rs.10,00,000/- for fresh one time settlement.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner is taken to be defaulter in not making payment of Rs.2,75,000/- in time and deposited a sum of Rs.90,000/-, he is still prepared to pay a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to settle all his dues as per the earlier one time settlement.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite parties-Bank may seek instructions if they could settle the dispute with the petitioner by accepting an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, in addition to already deposited amount, in full and final settlement of his dues.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Bank-opposite parties prays for time to seek instructions in the matter.

¶15

Accordingly, the matter to come up on 29.07.2020. xxx”.

¶16

6. From the facts of the case as have been averred in the writ petition, pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties for a sum of Rs.8,75,000/-, on 12.02.2019, the petitioner deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on spot and thereafter was required to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.6,75,000/- within 90 days, mainly Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,75,000/- by 15.03.2019, 15.04.2019 and 10.05.2019 respectively. But, the petitioner could deposit Rs.1,00,000/- each on 15.03.2019 and

¶17

-3-

¶18

15.04.2019 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.06.2019 but failed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2,75,000/- in time. However, the petitioner deposited further amount of Rs.90,000/on 27.11.2019 and filed fresh one time settlement proposal for Rs.2,75,000/- in full and final settlement of his dues.

¶19

7. In view of the offer of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to settle the dispute for the delay in payment of the aforesaid amount from 21.06.2019 till now, the opposite parties-Bank has considered the fresh offer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Bank-opposite parties on instructions from the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank submitted that the Bank has accepted the one time settle offer of the petitioner for Rs.5,00,000/- for full and final settlement of the dues of the petitioner provided petitioner deposits such amount at an early date.

¶20

8. Having regard to the facts stated above and the submissions made, we dispose of the writ petition by requiring the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000/with the concerned Bank within fifteen days from today for full and final settlement of his dues. Upon failure of the petitioner to comply with the order of this Court in depositing the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within the stipulated time, it will be

¶21

-4-

¶22

open for the Bank-opposite parties to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

Personal appearance of the Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Kakat Chhak, Kendrapara Branch, Kendrapara is dispensed with for the time being.

¶24

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s

¶25

Notice No. 4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶26

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶27

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶28

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store v. Canara Bank,Regional Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store v. Canara Bank,Regional Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Prasad Mahakur Vs State of Odisha

Tirthananda Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Abani Kumar Gaya Vs State of Odisha

Bibhu Prasad Patra Vs the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Sannkar Kanar Vs the State of Odisha

Parbati Sandibigraha Vs State of Odisha