Dismissed

Malwa Industries Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2016CWP/17446/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for quashing a bank letter regarding loan restructuring, the petitioner failed to produce a required demand draft of `15 Crores within the court's timeline. The court held that this non-compliance established no ground to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed due to non-compliance with the previous order to produce a demand draft of `15 Crores.

Malwa Industries Ltd. Vs Canara Bank and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 17446 of 2016 Decided on : 05.10.2016

¶3

Malwa Industries Limited

¶4

. . . Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Canara Bank and others

¶7

. . . Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the respondent Bank letter dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure P-25) as the same is against the RBI CDR Gudelines, which is appended as Annexure P-3 qua restructuring of borrowal accounts. In addition thereto, some other prayers regarding directions to the respondents have also been made.

¶13

Since the liability to pay was not disputed and the primary claim was for restructuring of loan, in order to test the bona fides of the petitioner, the following orders were passed on August 27, 2016:-

¶14

“Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted

¶15

that the prayer made in this writ petition is for restructuring the loan advanced by six banks, whereas, respondent No.2 i.e. State Bank of India is the only bank which is not accepting the proposal for restructuring of loan.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to produce the demand draft of ` 15 Crores in Court on the next date of hearing to demonstrate its bona fides.

¶17

Jawala Ram 2016.10.18 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 17446 of 2016 - 2 -

¶19

Adjourned to 15.09.2016.”

¶20

Again on September 15, 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for more time to produce the demand draft of `15 Crores, in terms of order dated August 27, 2016. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 05.10.2016.

¶21

Even today, no demand draft for `15 Crores has been produced in pursuance to the order dated August 27, 2016.

¶22

In view of the non-compliance of order dated August 27, 2016, of this Court, no ground to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶25

(RAMENDRA JAIN) October 05, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶26

Jawala Ram 2016.10.18 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Malwa Industries Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malwa Industries Ltd. v. Canara Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Summer and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Joginder Singh Rataul Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Narinder Kaur Vs Board of Directors of State Bank of India and Ors.

Chander Shekhar Vs Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh and Anr.

Residents Welfare Association Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.