Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 229 (JHR)

Jagdish Prasad Chaurashia v. State Bank of India

2011-03-22

R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
Order This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14. 12.2010, passed in Appeal No. 75 of 2010/ 9231-32 by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. By filing an I.A No. 898/2011, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 7.3.2011 also passed by the said Tribunal. 2. Mr. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Freedom Fighter aged about 92 years and he is the guarantor and his son has taken loan and the house in question is the only residential house. He further submitted that the Tribunal should have waived 100% of the amount required to be deposited under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1993). He relied on the order dated 11.2.2008, passed by Madras High Court in the case of "Chand Narain Langar vs. Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors., and the order dated 29.5.2007, passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kams Leatherware Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the said judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. It appears that the impugned order dated 14.12.2010 was passed by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the respective cases of the parties and on considering the relevant aspects of the matter including that the loan amount would be now around Rs.25 lakhs; and that in the premises in question, one wine shop was running. The amount was substantially reduced to Rs.3 lakhs to be deposited within two weeks, failing which, the consequences were to follow. Against the said order, this writ petition was filed on 27.1.2011. When the case was called out on 8.3.2011, on the prayer of the petitioner the case was adjourned for today,• i.e. 22.3.2011. In the meantime, when the matter was listed before the Tribunal on 7.3.2011 a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to adjourn the case on the ground of pendency of this writ petition. The Tribunal rejected such prayer taking into consideration inter alia that there is no interim order by this Court and that the petitioner was trying to delay the matter. 5. The Tribunal rejected such prayer taking into consideration inter alia that there is no interim order by this Court and that the petitioner was trying to delay the matter. 5. On going through the said judgments relied by Mr. Pati, it appears that 100% waiver was allowed taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of those cases. In the present case, in my opinion, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. After the order was dictated, Mr. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some reasonable time may be given to deposit the amount of 3 lakhs. 7. In the circumstances, if the petitioner deposits Rs.3 lakhs within two weeks from today, the appeal will be heard by the Tribunal on its own merit.