The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition for extension of time to repay a dues to the respondent bank. The court held that the petitioner failed to recover funds within the granted time, depriving the extension of utility, and ordered the bank to proceed with recovery from the petitioner's retired staff dues.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 328/2013
Ajay Sharma Son of Shri G.D. Sharma, 2/253, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Adv. with Mr. Hemant Taylor, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Pareek, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
11/01/2019
1. Counsel for the petitioner does not press the application No.22203 dated 09.04.2018 whereby he had sought extension of time provided under order dated 29.07.2016.
2. Accordingly, the said application is dismissed. The Bank would be free to take up further proceedings as observed in the order dated 29.07.2016.
3. Vide order dated 29.07.2016, this Court had granted the petitioner’s one and a half year time to make the recoveries however after the petitioner has not been able to get the recoveries effected, thus the original order of recovery from the petitioner would automatically revive in terms of the order dated
(2 of 2)
[CW-328/2013]
29.07.2016. Thus viewed, this Court has upheld the order passed by the respondents for making recovery from the petitioner and as the petitioner has not further pressed his application for extension of time. This Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served for further keeping the writ petition pending as the petitioner has agreed in terms of the order dated 29.07.2016 to repay the remaining amount which could not be recovered.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with observation that the Bank would be free to make recovery from the petitioner to the extent the amount has not been recovered. As the petitioner has retired, the amount can be recovered from the
retiral dues.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
R.Vaishnav
30.
Ajay Sharma
The Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Limited
Sandeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
