Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

Anu Bhalla and another Vs. District Magistrate, Pathankot.1 CWP-5518-2020 P& H (DB) DT.22.9.2020 5 of 23  Milkhi Ram Bhagwan Das Vs. District Magistrate and Another.2  M/s Behl Roller Floor Mills Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank3  Amit Mahajan and another Vs. Punjab Natinal Bank4  M/s. A-One Mega Mart P. Ltd. Vs. HDFC Bank5  M/s Lord Budha Society Vs. State Bank of Patiala6  M/s Malhan Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank7  Sat Kartar Ice and General Mills Vs. Punjab Financial cORPORATION8  State Bank of India Vs. Vijay Kumar9 Events after filing of the Writ Petition Notice of motion was issued on 22.05.2018 for 25.07.2018 by a Division Bench of this Court and the DRT, Chandigarh was directed to adjourn the case, the OA filed by the Bank, beyond the date fixed in the instant case.

It is contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the extension of time for complying with the OTS CWP No.327 of 2020 P & H (DB) DT.23.12.2020 CM-1375-2021 IN RA-CW-22-2021 IN CWP-20520-2019 DT.29.1.2021 CWP-6809-2021-P&H DT.10.12.2021 2013(1)PLR 688 P&H (DB) CWP No.4348 of 2012 P&H (DB) 2015(67) R.C.R (Civil) 782 P &H (DB) 2008(1) ISJ (Banking) 248 P&H (DB) AIR 2007 SC 1689 6 of 23 as the petitioner fulfills the guidelines laid down in the case of Anu Bhalla (1 Supra) and others judgments referred to above.

"Whether an OTS scheme can be extended by the High Court and if so, in what circumstances?"

This issue had been considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anu Bhalla and Another (1 supra) .

Civil Appeal No.7411 of 2021 dt.15.2.2021 (SC) 2020 SCC Online Ker 4282 (2007) 4 BC 474 (2005) 3 CTC 513 AIR 2004 ALL 319 (2005) 1 LW 58 AIR 2002 ALL 96 2006(2) AD (Delhi) 167 9 of 23 In that the case, the Division Bench specifically held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts would have the jurisdiction to extend the period of settlement as originally provided for in OTS letter, but laid down certain guidelines to be followed.

H. Irreparable loss and injury to the applicant The Division Bench in Anu Bhalla (1 Supra) clarified that the guidelines/factors are not exhaustive but only illustrative for the guidance of the parties and the Courts, while considering the prayer by the borrower for extension of the time under OTS on case to case basis. It also held that the Courts would be free to consider the credentials of the borrower as well, being an equitable and discretionary relief.

Several decisions rendered by different High Courts and Supreme Court were considered by the said Division Bench while rendering the above judgment.