✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 16 Jan 2012

M/s Baldev Sales Corporation v. State Bank of India & Anr.

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12675 of 2011M M KUMAR, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. Accordingly, we direct that the first instalment of `6,00,000/- be deposited on 30.1.2012 and the second and third instalment of equal amount be deposited on 15.3.2012 and
  • Para 66. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JU JU JU JUDGEDGEDGEDGE , 2012 January 11116666, 2012 January…

Judgment

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR CORAM: CORAM: . JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL . JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the respondents. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

1.

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J., J., J., J. M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR

1.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a direction to the respondent State Bank of India to settle the loan account bearing No. 300679670.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that on 14.8.2006, the petitioner, which is a firm, availed CC limit of `10,00,000/- from the Dhuri Branch of the respondent Bank. Smt. Shila Devi, mother of the proprietor of the petitioner firm had given personal guarantee by securing House No. 13A/48, Railway Hospital Road, Dhuri. The petitioner could not pay the instalments due to loss in the business. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the intention to clear the outstanding dues of the respondent Bank.

3.

Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondents has CWP No. 12675 of 2011 2 placed on record a copy of the State of Account No. 30067967670, dated 7.1.2012, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. As per the statement of account, the balance amount of `23,69,508.87 is due to the respondent bank as on 15.1.2012.

4.

Mr. Avnish Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall make payment of the whole due amount in four instalments and squar off the whole liability on or before 15.6.2012.

5.

Accordingly, we direct that the first instalment of `6,00,000/- be deposited on 30.1.2012 and the second and third instalment of equal amount be deposited on 15.3.2012 and

30.4.2012. The balance amount along with interest, if any, which might accrue after 15.1.2012 be also deposited along with the last instalment on or before 15.6.2012. However, it is made clear that if there is any factual error in the statement of account (Mark ‘A’) then the same shall not be reckoned to the prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The respondents on satisfaction of the loan amount shall release the title deeds or any other document which might have been furnished by the borrower-petitioner or the guarantor.

Operative part

6.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JU JU JU JUDGEDGEDGEDGE , 2012 January 11116666, 2012 January , 2012 , 2012 January January PKapoor

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands disposed of in the above terms

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 16 Jan 2012. The bench was M M KUMAR, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

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 Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12675 of 2011). ← Search more judgments