Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1011 (JHR)

Canara Bank v. M. E. W. Suspension Pvt. Ltd

2016-07-04

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No.6898 of 2015 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 15 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph nos. 03 to 07 there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 15 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6898 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of. L.P.A No.743 of 2015 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent's writ petition being W.P.(C) No.503 of 2015 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 28.10.2015 in view of the efficacious remedy available to the respondents (original petitioners) under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Nonetheless, in para – 05, following are the observations made by the learned Single Judge :- “5. Considering the aforesaid facts, though I am not inclined to interfere with order dated 15.09.2015, a direction is issued to the respondent-Bank to furnish a copy of one time settlement scheme of Canara Bank dated 06.04.2015. The petitioners are permitted to submit a proposal in terms of bank's own guidelines within two weeks and if, the petitioners submit a proposal, the same shall be considered by the respondent-Bank, expeditiously.” 5. Lot of grievances have been ventilated by the counsel for the appellant-Bank for the observations made in para-05, we are not in agreement with the argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellants. We cannot dispose of an application preferred by the respondents for one time settlement scheme, if at all it is enforced and is applicable to the respondents. 6. We cannot dispose of an application preferred by the respondents for one time settlement scheme, if at all it is enforced and is applicable to the respondents. 6. Thus, if one time scheme is enforced and the same is applicable to the respondents, then if such application is preferred by the respondents for one time settlement, the same will be considered by the appellant-Bank in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy of the Bank and in accordance with one time settlement scheme, if such type of scheme is existing, in force and applicable to the respondents, copy whereof, shall be supplied to the respondents, at the earliest. 7. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby dismissed, as there is no substance in the said appeal.