IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1777 of 2009
Surendra Kumar Singh... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank & Ors.... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Raj
------
04/10.11.2009
The petitioner does not appear to be serious about his offer.
He is just trying to adopt dilatory tactics by making illusory offers.
Initially in January, 2006 the petitioner offered to pay the
outstanding amount to the respondent bank in installments within
12 months. If that offer has been accepted by the bank the
payment would have been completed about two and half years
ago. No payment was made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner came to this Court by means of present writ petition and
after hearing the parties on 12.8.2009 i.e. almost three months
ago, this Court directed by an interim order that if the petitioner
deposits with the respondent bank a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, which
represents roughly half of the amount than due, the proceedings
under “The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002” against the
petitioner will remain stayed. The petitioner did not deposit any
worthwhile amount pursuant to that order and now the petitioner
has approached this Court again saying that he is “prepared” to
deposit the said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs through personal cheques,
reliability of which would be very doubtful in view of the past
conduct of the petitioner.
But apart from reliability of these cheques, the more
important fact is that because of non-deposit of the amount
required by the interim order, proceedings under the Securitisation
Act continued and the property has been sold to a third party for a
sum of about Rs. 17 lakhs.
In view of this development, the Court made an offer to the
petitioner for deposit of a sum of Rs.15 lakhs within 10 days from
today with the respondent bank, but the offer was declined by the
learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly. Now after this order
has been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner has consented
to accept the offer again by issuing personal cheques.
2.
In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner’s offer cannot be trusted. It is just meant to delay the
proceedings.
The interim order is vacated for non-compliance of the
condition mentioned therein.
The amount is due from the petitioner, who apparently does
not intend to pay back even a part of it.
In the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my
discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction in favour of the
petitioner relying on technicalities.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
Sudhir/FA