Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sanjay Kumar JaIn Vs. Branch Manaager Central Bank of India

Sanjay Kumar Jain vs Branch Manaager Central Bank of India

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 24, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040191

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay Kumar Jain

Advocate Shri. Subodh Tamrakar

Respondent

Branch Manaager Central Bank of India

Excerpt

.....it seems that thereafter petitioner did deposit some amount but as the entire amount of rs.14,20,000/- as agreed to was not deposited before the scheduled date i.e.24th september 2012. expressing certain financial difficulties in depositing the amount within the time fixed and challenging the notice issued by the bank for proceeding to recover the amount in accordance to the provisions of securitization and reconstruction of financial assets act, this writ petition is filed. respondent bank on being noticed have filed a reply and it is pointed out by them that as petitioner has failed to comply with the settlement arrived at in the lok adalat the bank is entitled to proceed in the matter. the petitioner contends that if the bank is directed to be proceed in the matter the residential house belonging to the petitioner is auctioned and it would cause serious inconvenience and injustice to the petitioner. having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the interest of justice involved it is felt that one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to clear the dues as indicated herein above. accordingly it is directed that the proposed action as contemplated in the notice annexure p/4 pertaining to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till 30th june, 2013. the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount due as agreed to in the lok adalat on or before 30th june, 2013 and on the same being done, the proceeding initiated shall be withdrawn by the bank in case of default by the petitioner bank shall be proceed to further in the matter to recover the remaining amount. it is made clear that petitioner will not be permitted to seek further extension in any manner whatsoever. with the aforesaid this petition stands disposed of. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

W.P.No.20436/2012 24/1/2013 Shri Subodh Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Seeking extension of time to deposit the amount due and payable to the respondent Bank in accordance to the settlement arrived at in Lok Adalat held in the District Court, this writ petition is filed.

Petitioner had taken loan from the respondent Bank and a dispute had arisen with regard to repayment of the same.

The matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat which was held on 11.6.2012 and after due negotiation a settlement is arrived t in the Lok Adalat as is evident from Annexure P/2 the settlement to the effect that the amount to be paid by the petitioner to the Bank was assessed at and agreed to be Rs.15 Lacs and it was further agreed that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 Lac as the sum of Rs.80,000/- was already paid.

The remaining amount of Rs.14,20,000/- shall be paid by the end of September 2012.

It seems that thereafter petitioner did deposit some amount but as the entire amount of Rs.14,20,000/- as agreed to was not deposited before the scheduled date i.e.24th September 2012.

Expressing certain financial difficulties in depositing the amount within the time fixed and challenging the notice issued by the Bank for proceeding to recover the amount in accordance to the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, this writ petition is filed.

Respondent bank on being noticed have filed a reply and it is pointed out by them that as petitioner has failed to comply with the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat the Bank is entitled to proceed in the matter.

The petitioner contends that if the Bank is directed to be proceed in the matter the residential house belonging to the petitioner is auctioned and it would cause serious inconvenience and injustice to the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the interest of justice involved it is felt that one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to clear the dues as indicated herein above.

Accordingly it is directed that the proposed action as contemplated in the notice Annexure P/4 pertaining to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till 30th June, 2013.

The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount due as agreed to in the Lok Adalat on or before 30th June, 2013 and on the same being done, the proceeding initiated shall be withdrawn by the bank in case of default by the petitioner Bank shall be proceed to further in the matter to recover the remaining amount.

It is made clear that petitioner will not be permitted to seek further extension in any manner whatsoever.

With the aforesaid this petition stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge mrs.mishra

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial