✦ Madhya Pradesh High Court

(BY SHRI H.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE) v. BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Judgment

SMT. SHRI SURUCHI BHADORIYA W/O LATE SURENDRA SINGH BHADORIYA, AGE 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O U-38 BEHIND ATLAS CYCLE MALANPUR, TEHSIL- GOHAD DISTRICT-BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SHRI H.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE) .....PETITIONER AND

#2. BANK OF CENTRAL THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE NAKA CHANDRAVADNI, INFRONT OF GOVT. POLITICAL COLLEGE, JHANSI ROAD, DISTRICT-GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) INDIA CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH BRANCH M A N A G E R BRANCH MALANPUR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Rohit Arya passed the following: ORDER Petitioner, a borrower, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a grievance that after declaration of the loan account in her name as non-performing asset, liability has been raised by the respondent/ 2 bank for payment. According to the petitioner, OTS proposal (One Time Settlement) has been given by the petitioner to the respondent/ bank for consideration vide Annexure P-3, but no sincere efforts so far has been made by the respondent/ bank in that behalf.

#2. Be that as it may.

#3. Suffice it to say that in case, such OTS proposal is there and the same is within the guidelines of the RBI or the concerned bank, the same may be taken into consideration by the respondent/ bank in accordance with the relevant/ prescribed terms/ guidelines.

#4. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

#5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE VARSHA CHATURVEDI 10:40:08 +05'30' (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madhya Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 23072 of 2023). ← Search more judgments