Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 794 (JHR)

Arvind Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2021-09-24

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 18th August, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) no.2716 of 2021 by granting further three weeks’ time to the petitioner to deposit Rs.8.00 lacs in compliance of the said order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 18th August, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2716 of 2021, the relevant part of which reads as under:- “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. 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. 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. 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. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Consequently, I.A. No. 3682/2021 also stands disposed of. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Consequently, I.A. No. 3682/2021 also stands disposed of. 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.” It would, thus, be evident that the petitioner was granted sufficient time for payment of the settlement amount on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. Now, the present CMP has been filed for grant of three weeks more time to the petitioner to deposit the second instalment of Rs.8.00 lacs. I see no justification in the said prayer of the petitioner. This Court has already granted sufficient time to the petitioner, as would be evident from the order dated 18th August, 2021. This CMP being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.