Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Purna Chandra Adak & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2011

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                                  1




                                   In The High Court At Calcutta
                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                           Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.

                                        W.P. No. 25713 (W) of 2008
                                       Purna Chandra Adak & Ors.
                                       v.
                               The Union of India & Ors.


       Mr. Saibal Acharya
       Mr. Suprakash Mishra
       Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharyya
                          ... for the petitioners.
       Mr. D.K.Sengupta

                            ... for the 29th-33rd respondents.

Heard on: July 6, 2011.

Judgment on: July 6, 2011.

The Court: Mr. Acharya appearing for the petitioners submits under instructions from the advocate-on-record that allegations made by Mr. Sengupta appearing for the bank that in the name of notice of the case only a notice accompanied by short case title was sent to the bank by registered post is correct. He has tendered apology and the advocate-on-record has tendered apology for the wrong he has committed. I do not think the matter should be taken further.

As to the case of the petitioners, Mr. Sengupta is right in contending that they all could not join together alleging inaction in that the bank did not consider their request for grant of loan waiver benefit under the scheme of the Central Government.

The petitioners took separate loans and their cases, if any, were to be examined by the bank separately. There was no commonness in the causes of action.

Considering the whole situation, Mr. Acharya has submitted that the petitioners will submit separate applications to the appropriate authority of the bank seeking benefit of the loan waiver scheme of the Central Government. Mr. Sengupta has said that though the branch manager of the bank present in Court has not found any scope for granting the petitioners benefit of the scheme, if 2 appropriate applications are submitted, the bank will take necessary steps to consider them.

In view of the above-noted situation, I dispose of the petition saying that if the petitioners submit appropriate applications seeking benefit of the loan waiver scheme of the Central Government, then the bank shall consider such applications in accordance with law. The reasoned decisions shall be communicated to the petitioners without any delay. No costs. Certified xerox.

sh                                                          ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J )