IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 4193 of 2008
M/s. Anvil Investments Private Limited, Kolkata and one of its unit in
the name and style of M/s Gillooram Gaurishanker, Deoghar through
its Director Sanjay Dalmia ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Patna through its General Manager
2. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Deoghar Branch, Deoghar
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Anubha Rawat, K.P. Choudhary, Advocates
For the Respondents : M/s Rajesh Kumar, Amit Kumar, Advocates
———
th
Later on (19 February, 2010)
1. When this matter was initially taken up in the morning hours,
the petitioner wanted to show its bona fide to deposit the amount
before this Court or before the respondent-Bank and, therefore, the
matter was kept after some time.
2. Again, when the matter is heard during the course of the day,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs) to show its bona fide that the extension application, which has
been preferred by the petitioner, has been brushed aside without
appreciating the first compromise dated 25th August, 2007
(Annexure-6 to the memo of petition).
3. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents has taken
instructions from the high ranking officer from Patna and what he has
submitted is that the respondent-Bank has initiated action under
Section 13 of The Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be
referred to as the Act, 2002) and after giving notice under Sub-Section
(2) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002, further action under Sub-Section
(4) of Section 13 of the Act, 2002 has also been completed and,
thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Ranchi and the application, preferred by the petitioner has also been
dismissed against which, an appeal has been preferred before the
Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, with a view
to approach the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata for showing their bona
fide and under the hope for second compromise to be entered into
between the parties.
5. In view of these submissions and as the matter is already
pending before the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata under the Act, 2002,
this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn, reserving liberty with
the petitioner to move necessary application under the law.
6. The petition is, hereby, disposed of as withdrawn.
7. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(D.N. Patel, J)
Ajay/