Allowed

Priya Bhaskar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2011CWP/16174/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the withdrawal of a writ petition where the petitioner failed despite previous extensions to deposit 75% of the balance bid amount, holding that the petitioner abused the court process but retaining her right to dispute forfeiture elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of writ petition allowed subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Priya Bhaskar Vs Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.16174 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-: 1 :-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM No.15198 of 2011 in CWP No.16174 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 11, 2011.

Priya Bhaskar

... Petitioner

Indian Overseas Bank and others

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.

¶12

Shri O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Shri Harjit Singh Gharoo, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.2.

¶14

Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Suneet Bindlish, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶15

Shri I.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶16

Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):

¶17

Notice to the Counsel for the non-applicants.

¶18

Shri Harjit Singh Gharoo, instructing Counsel to Shri O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Suneet Bindlish, instructing Counsel to Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶19

The application is for permission to withdraw the writ petition for inability of the petitioner to deposit 75% of the balance bid amount within a period of two weeks. The petitioner has also prayed that liberty be given to the petitioner to dispute the forfeiture of earnest money of

¶20

CWP No.16174 of 2009 (O&M)

¶21

-: 2 :-

¶22

Rs.28,75,000/-, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

¶23

The petitioner has made a statement before this Court on 3.10.2011 to the effect that she is ready and willing to deposit 75% of the balance amount, i.e., Rs.1.15 crores less Rs.28.75 lacs within a period of two weeks along with prevailing rate of interest to the Bank on the borrowings. It was such statement which led this Court to grant time to the petitioner. After availing time on 12.10.2011 and 2.11.2011, the petitioner has now come out with a plea to withdraw the writ petition as she is unable to deposit the amount.

¶24

We find that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court and consequently, we allow the writ petition to be withdrawn but subject to the petitioner paying Rs.25,000/- as costs to the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee within a period of one month. With the said observation, the application is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

It may be clarified that the statement made before this Court is not an expression in respect of validity of the auction proceedings conducted by the Bank in which respondent No.3 was the successful purchaser or of forfeiture of the earnest money, though it shall be open to the petitioner to raise such a dispute before such competent authority/court as the petitioner may choose.

¶26

[ Hemant Gupta ] Judge

¶27

[ G.S. Sandhawalia ] Judge

¶28

November 11, 2011. kadyan

Priya Bhaskar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Bhaskar v. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr.

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

Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Chd-Ii Vs M/S Allengers Medical System Ltd. Bathinda

Charanjit Kaur Vs Bhupinder Singh

Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad Vs Escorts Employees Ancillaries

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Walia Traders Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hitesh Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.