IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 405 of 2010
1. Sri Arjun Prasad Agarwal
2. Smt. Permila Devi........................... Petitioners
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, Gumla Branch ............... Respondent
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K.Merathia
......
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Bank : Mr. Gyanendra Kuamr, Advocates.
......
2/30.11.2010
Heard the parties.
2 This C.M.P. Has been filed for extension of time for paying the
amounts in terms of the order dated 30/08/2010. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that out of the dues of Rs. 5,32,146.50
paise, the petitioners deposited two installments as per the said order, but
he could not deposit the 3rd and 4th installments for the reasons stated in
the petition, and therefore, the time to deposit the same may be extended.
Referring to AnnexureC to the counter affidavit to the writ petition, he
submitted that on 06/07/2010 the present outstanding on that day was
shown as Rs. 5,32,146.50 paise and, accordingly, the said order was passed
in the writ petition but now the bank is asking for higher amount.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the bank
submitted that the order dated 30/08/2010 was passed on petitioners’
readiness and willingness to pay the dues of the bank if some time was
granted. Referring to Annexure A dated 1.9.2006 (to the counter affidavit
filed in the writ petition) he submitted that in the letter dated 06/07/2010
it was noted that the loan account is NPA in the books of the bank from
30/06/2006 and, accordingly, the interest was not shown alongwith
outstanding amount of Rs. 5,32,146.50.
4. It is clear from the order dated 30/08/2010 that the petitioners
expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the dues of the bank if
2
some time is granted by this Court. The dues of the bank were not
ascertained at the time of passing the said order. However, in view of the
said letter dated 06/07/2010, order was passed directing the petitioners to
pay Rs. 5 lakhs in four installments, and thereafter, the bank was directed
to supply the details of the balance amount due to the petitioners, which,
the petitioners were directed to deposit. It was also ordered that if the
petitioners fail to comply with any part of the order, the bank may auction
the property mortgaged and will debit the expenses of advertisement in the
account of the petitioner.
5. In the circumstances, I indicated that if the petitioners are ready
and willing to pay the dues of the bank as per the bank’s calculation with
interest till the date of payment, the time can be extended, but Mr. Ayush
Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submitted that
the petitioners are not agreeable, and therefore, they may be allowed to
withdraw this C.M.P. as well as the main writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this C.M.P. stands
dismissed as withdrawn. But petitioners can not be allowed to withdraw the
disposed of writ petition.
(R.K.Merathia, J)
Mukund/