Disposed

Harihara Padhy v. the Bm, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Orissa HC14 Oct 2022WP(C)/14312/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a working solution for defaulted loan EMIs by offering two demand drafts totaling Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The respondent required a minimum deposit of Rs. 3.5 lakhs by a specified date for considering installment liquidation. The High Court stayed the interim order pending compliance and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 3.5 lakhs by October 31, 2022 for conditional liquidation of arrears; interim order continued until then.

Harihara Padhy Vs the Bm, Mahindra and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14312 of 2022 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Harihara Padhy

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Bibekananda Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

The BM, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and another

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

Order No.

04.

14.10.2022

1. The writ petition has been listed under heading ‘To be Mentioned’ at instance of parties, to effect a working solution arising on default committed by petitioner in paying Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) of Rs.70,590/-. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has submitted two demand drafts of aggregate Rs.2.5 lakhs payable to the financer. Drawing attention to para-9 in the counter he submits, as on 7^th June,

¶16

2022 outstanding on arrear EMIs was Rs.3,52,582/-. There be direction upon the financer to accept said sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs and allow his client to liquidate the arrears in installments. His client will continue to pay current installments falling due.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

¶19

2. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of the financer (opposite parties) and submits, there be direction for petitioner to deposit minimum of Rs.3.5 lakhs for his client to consider allowing petitioner to liquidate the arrears in installments along with paying current installments falling due.

¶20

3. Petitioner will approach the financer by 31^st October, 2022 with Rs.3.5 lakhs. In event petitioner does so, the financer will consider allowing liquidation of the arrears by installments, in addition to petitioner paying current installments falling due.

¶21

4. The interim order will continue till 31^st October, 2022, after which it will stand automatically vacated. The demand drafts are returned to Mr. Mohapatra.

¶22

5. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶24

Sks

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Harihara Padhy v. the Bm, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihara Padhy v. the Bm, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

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

Tabasum Faradin Vs State of Orissa

State of Orissa Vs Ch.Natabar Sahoo

Ranjit Ku.Das Vs Sr.Dm,E.C.Rly

M/S Maa Chandi Stone Crushing, Jajpur Vs State of Orissa

Asst. Engineer/Sub-Div. Officer(Elect) Tpsodl, Phulbani Electrical Sub-Div. Vs Permanent Lok Adalat,(P.U.S), Phulbani

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs R.Jyoti Reddy