Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 641 (JHR)

Arvind Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-18

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing part of the auction notice dated 04.07.2021 published in the local daily newspaper ‘Prabaht Khabar’ for auction of the property of M/s Unique Coal Company (S. No. 1 of the said auction notice) and upon quashing the notice dated 04.07.2021, the respondent-Bank may be directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the compromise/sanction letter dated 10.07.2021 under the OTS scheme of all seven accounts of M/s Unique Coal Company, M/s A.B. Enterprises and M/S Bhawani Enterprises. The petitioner has also made other related prayers. 3. According to the petitioner, he had issued a cheque of Indian Bank bearing No. 120994 dated 10.07.2021 for Rs. 2 Lacs in favour of the respondent-Bank as an affront amount as per the compromise entered between the parties under the OTS Scheme. However, the said cheque was returned by the petitioner’s Bank i.e. Indian Bank, the return memo of which did not mention any reason for not honouring the same. 4. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2021, had directed the respondent-Bank to file counter affidavit disclosing as to for what reason the said cheque issued by the petitioner was returned by his Bank. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, yet no reason for returning the cheque of Rs. 2 Lacs by the petitioner’s Bank (Indian Bank) has been disclosed therein. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has sincerely intended to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise entered between the parties under the OTS Scheme and the dispute has arisen only due to return of the cheque of Rs. 2 Lacs by his Bank (Indian Bank), he is ready to make payment of Rs. 12 Lacs in two instalments against the settlement amount of Rs. 42 Lacs for the present. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the first instalment of Rs. 4 Lacs will be deposited with the respondent-Bank by the petitioner by 21.08.2021. The second instalment of Rs. 8 Lacs will be deposited by the petitioner with the said Bank on or before 31.08.2021. 7. 42 Lacs for the present. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the first instalment of Rs. 4 Lacs will be deposited with the respondent-Bank by the petitioner by 21.08.2021. The second instalment of Rs. 8 Lacs will be deposited by the petitioner with the said Bank on or before 31.08.2021. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is ordered that on payment of the said instalments, the petitioner shall be permitted by the respondent-Bank to make a fresh proposal for settlement of the loan accounts in question. On receipt of the said proposal, the respondent-Bank shall take an appropriate decision over the same within a further period of two weeks. 8. However, the modalities of payment of the rest amount against the loan accounts in question shall depend upon the settlement which may be arrived between the parties. 9. In view of the aforesaid arrangement made, the operation of the impugned auction notice dated 04.07.2021, so far as the same relates to the petitioner’s property, which is said to be rescheduled for today, shall be kept in abeyance till an appropriate decision is taken by the respondent-Bank in relation to the present dispute. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 11. Consequently, I.A. No. 3682/2021 also stands disposed of. 12. It is made clear that the present order is being passed considering the peculiar facts of this case and the same will not set any precedence.