Partly allowed

Smt. Kamla Devi v. Madhav Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2008CW/1567/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging auction cancellation and seeking execution of sale deed, the court held that sale deed execution was impossible post-cancellation. The petition was modified to direct the bank to refund the deposit within a week without interest; 10% interest would apply if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to refund the deposited amount within a week without interest, or with 10% interest per annum if delayed.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Madhav Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and… — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION 1567/2008 SMT. KAMLA DEVI V. MADHAV NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD. & OTHERS.

¶3

Date of Order : 10.4.2008

¶4

HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J.

¶5

Mr. R. K. Thanvi, for Petitioner. Mr. N. M.Lodha, AAG. Mr. Anil Bhandari, for Respondent.

¶6

This writ petition pertains to the cancellation of auction with a prayer to the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶7

The matter was heard by this Court and to sort out the small issue involved in the present matter, even the Chairman of the Bank and the Chief Executive Officer were called. It is given out that the auction, having been cancelled, sale-deed cannot be executed by the Bank. Thus, the main prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted by the respondents. The Court has looked into the matter and taking into consideration the fact that the auction having been cancelled, the relief regarding execution of sale-deed cannot be granted.

¶8

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank may then refund the amount, so initially deposited by the petitioner. On that prayer, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that necessary directions may be issued by this Court. Since now the issue

¶9

remains for refund of the amount only, I do not want to go into various controversies raised by both the parties, i.e., whether the petitioner had paid the entire balance amount pursuant to the auction on or before the last date so

¶10

¶11

extended. The controversy as to whether the respondents had accepted settlement with the borrower, even prior to last date of deposition of balance amount pursuant to the auction, all these questions need not be gone in as the parties have prayed for issuance of necessary direction for payment of the amount so deposited by the petitioner.

¶12

Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, since controversy in the present matter is not large, therefore, taking note of the discussion made above, the respondents are directed to refund the amount so given by the petitioner within a week which would not carry any interest up to the date of the payment if such payment is made within a week. If the necessary amount is not made within the prescribed time, it will carry interest @ 10% per cent. It is, however, made clear that the direction aforesaid would not mean that the objection raised by the respondents pertaining to the maintainability of the writ is given up.

¶13

(M. N. BHANDARI),J.

¶14

scd

Smt. Kamla Devi v. Madhav Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Devi v. Madhav Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

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

Harsore Krishak Seva Sah. Sansthan Vs Uco Bank and Anr.

Raj Kumar and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Ram Chandra Vs B.O.R.,Raj.Ajmer and Ors.

Paras Mal Vs State and Anr.

Smt. Sapna Dadhich Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Sawai Singh Vs B.O.R.,Ajmer and Ors.