Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shashi Kumar Sharma vs . Pnb & Ors. on 27 December, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
Shashi Kumar Sharma vs. PNB & Ors.
.
CWP No. 589 of 2019 27.12.2022 Present: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents.
The instant petition was disposed of on 27.03.2019, by passing the following order:-
"The petitioner and the respondent-Bank entered into One Time Settlement on 3rd December, 2018. As per the same, the petitioner agreed to pay a total sum of Rs. 63,85,000/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/-, as certified by the Bank on 1st January, 2019 and the balance amount of Rs. 37,85,000/- was to be paid on or before 25th March, 2019. The petitioner has not been able to pay the aforesaid balance amount, hence, seeks extension of three months' time to pay the same.
In the pre-lunch session, learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the bank had pointed out that OTS Scheme would lapse on 31st March, 2019. We were, however, not impressed by this submission as no fresh OTS is to take place between the parties since the Settlement has already taken place. The only question was whether the petitioner has made out a case for extension of time? We were not, however, inclined to grant three months' time, as prayed for by the petitioner, hence, learned counsel sought time to have fresh instructions.
The case has now been taken during post- lunch session. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay the balance amount of Rs. 37,85,000/- in six equal installments, each to be paid fortnightly and the first installment of Rs. 6,30,000/- shall be paid within two weeks from today.
With a view to give one but last opportunity to the petitioner, we impress upon the Bank through its learned counsel to accept the petitioner's above-stated offer subject to the condition that the levy of interest on the balance amount shall continue till the petitioner pays the full amount. It is further directed that in case the petitioner does not honour the above-stated commitment and there is any default in a single installment, the OTS would be deemed to have been cancelled and the Bank shall be at liberty to ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:41:36 :::CIS proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with law.
.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
Copy dasti."
The petitioner could not comply with the aforesaid order in its letter and spirit and moved an application for extension of time, which was allowed by this Court vide order r to dated 08.05.2019, by passing the following order:-
"Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the non- applicants/respondents.
The prayer in this application is for modification of order dated 27th March, 2019, passed by this Court in CWP No. 589 of 2019 and to extend the time period to deposit second installment by the applicant/petitioner as per One Time Settlement(OTS).
It is not in dispute that as per the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant-
petitioner vide order dated 27th March, 2019, the due amount was to be paid in six equal monthly installments and the first installment was to be paid within two weeks from the date of the order. The applicant-petitioner has deposited the first installment, but the second installment, which was to be deposited by 19th April, 2019, has been faulted with, hence, this application.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with a view to give one more but last opportunity to the applicant-petitioner, the time limit to deposit the second installment is extended till 15th may, 2019. The applicant/petitioner shall also be liable to pay interest at the agreed rate for the delayed period from 10th April, 2019 to 15th May, 2019, on the amount of second installment. It is made clear that the applicant-petitioner shall continue to pay the remaining installments as per the undertaking recorded in order dated 27th March, 2019. The application stands disposed of accordingly."
Even thereafter, when the petitioner was not able to deposit the amount, this Court showed indulgence, but, the petitioner could not comply with order dated 27.03.2019.
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:41:36 :::CISMoreover, the respondent-Bank is now not in a .
position, rather not willing to accommodate the petitioner, as is evident from the instructions dated 12.12.2022, which are placed on record today.
In such circumstances, we see no reason to keep this petition pending, which otherwise stands disposed of.
Consequently, the same is ordered to be closed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
r Judge
(Virender Singh)
Judge
December 27, 2022
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2022 20:41:36 :::CIS