Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumer Chand Jalutharia & Anr vs State Of Raj. & Anr on 24 January, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
Sumer Chand Jalutharia & Anr.
VS.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.973/2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 24.1.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI
Mr.Nitish Bagri, for the appellants.
Mr.Rakesh Sharma, for the respondents.
_____
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE AMITAVA ROY, CJ.) :
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the uncontroverted averments made in the application, we are of the view that sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is thus condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed accordingly.
The present appeal witnesses a challenge to the order dated 13.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing extension of the term of the interim relief provided by the order dated 19.7.2010 whereby the 2 appellants/writ petitioners were required to deposit an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- on or before 30.7.2010.
For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to dilate on the relevant facts. Suffice it to mention that the appellants had availed financial accommodation from the respondent bank under the relevant scheme and as on 31.12.2012, an amount of Rs.21,02,866/- is lying outstanding against them. This amount is inclusive of interest at the applicable rate on the principal sum as calculated upto 31.12.2012.
Being aggrieved by the notice(s) dated 10.5.2010 issued by the respondent bank declaring their proposed action under the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the appellants approached this Court for annulling the same. It was in this context that the interim relief as above was granted subject to the condition of a deposit of Rs.2,75,000/- by the appellants on or before 30.7.2010. They admittedly having failed to meet the time frame, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused to extend the term of interim relief, though meanwhile, the deposit was made on 6.9.2010. Being aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners are in appeal.
In the course of arguments, without prejudice to the 3 rights and interests of the parties, this Court having been apprised of the dues of the appellants lying outstanding with the respondent bank as on 31.12.2012, i.e. Rs.21,02,866/- and being confronted with the same, the appellants have agreed to liquidate the same in the following terms :-
(a) An amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs.11 lakhs) would be paid by them within a period of less than three months from today.
(b) The remaining amount of Rs.10 lakhs and odd plus the interest that would accrue, would be cleared in two equal installments within the next six months.
An affidavit to this effect has been filed by Shri Sumer Chand Jalutharia, the appellant/writ petitioner no.1. This affidavit, we are told, has been filed by him by fully understanding the implications of the undertaking referred to therein.
The learned counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that if the outstanding dues as above is cleared as undertaken, he, on instructions, has no objection to the passing of appropriate orders accordingly.
In the above view of the matter, we hereby dispose of the present appeal along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6294/2010, as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the appellants/writ petitioners 4 to make the payments as undertaken in the affidavit above referred to.
We make it clear that in view of the offer to make payment in the above manner, we have not decided the issues involved on merits and it would be the legal obligation of the appellants/writ petitioners to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the affidavit for clearing the outstanding dues referred to herein above. In case of any default on the part of the appellants to comply with the modalities of payment as indicated herein above, the respondent Bank would be free to take necessary action under the Act and all other legal consequences would follow including contempt of court.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDRA MAHESHWARI),J. (AMITAVA ROY),CJ. S.Phophaliya/-