Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Virmani v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ…
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17163 of 2018
======================================================
Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Virmani, S/o Late Virbhan Virmani @ Veerbhan, Resident of House no. NH-3/72, New Industrial Town, Faridabad, Haryana, Proprietor of M/S New Prakash Roadways, 38 Bata Railway Crossing, Faridabad- 121001, Haryana.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar- Sc11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
“ (i) For issue of writ/order/direction in the
nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction thereof to return the bank guarantee papers (B.G. No. 083BGFD001417 dated 24.05.2016 issued by ICICI Bank as submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of the order of this Court in the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8773 of 2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.17163 of 2018(4) dt.27-02-2020 2/4
ordered for the provisional release of the truck against furnishing the bank gurantee of Rs 15,56,701 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Seven Hundred One Only), despite the order of the appellant authority held the relevant seizure as improper vide Appeal No. GG/VAT 64 of 2016-17 vide order dated 06.07.2017.
(ii) To issue show cause cum explanation notice upon the respondent authorities for the arbitrary act of the authorities who had unreasonably delayed, and are delaying the return of the bank guarantee papers and causing of loss to petitioner in form of cost incurred in providing and marinating bank guarantee for the delayed period, despite order of the appellant authority holding the relevant seizure as illegal in Appeal No. GG/VAT 64 of 2016-17 vide order dated 06.07.2017 was served upon the respondents.
(iii) To issue show cause cum explanation notice upon the respondent authorities that
Patna High Court CWJC No.17163 of 2018(4) dt.27-02-2020 3/4
why the petitioner be not compensated for loss to the petitioner on account of delaying the return of the bank guarantee papers and causing of loss to petitioner in form of cost incurred in providing and marinating bank guarantee for the delayed period.”
On 03.02.2020, we had passed the following order.
“The petition filed on 27.08.2018 is listed for hearing for the first time today before the Court.
Shri Vikash Kumar states that the present petition has become infructuous for the reason that the bank guarantee already stands returned.
None is present on behalf of the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned.
List on 05.02.2020.”
On 06.02.2020 also, we had passed the following
order.
“The petition filed on 27.08.2018 is listed for hearing for the first time today
Patna High Court CWJC No.17163 of 2018(4) dt.27-02-2020 4/4
before the Court.
Shri Vikash Kumar states that the present petition has become infructuous for the reason that the bank guarantee already stands returned.
None is present on behalf of the petitioner.
However, in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned.
List on 05.02.2020.”
Even today, despite repeated calls, none has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
The petition stands dismissed for default.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
veena/rajiv/-
U
Jai Prakash @ Jai Prakash Virmani
The State Of Bihar
Sanjay Karol
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court