Skip to content


Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.Responden - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kolkata High Court

Decided On

Judge

Respondent

Reserve Bank of India and ors.Responden

Excerpt:


.....his client will suffer. heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. in my considered view, for the ends of justice, the bank authorities should be given some time to complete the hearing. the bank authorities will hear the matter on 1st june, 2012 and they are permitted to issue notice for giving intimation to all the interested parties. i make it clear that in case the decision goes against the writ petitioners.there would be no such presumption as directed in the order dated 13th february, 2012. the application is disposed of. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (ashoke kumar dasadhikari, j.) k. banerjee, a.r.[c.r.].

Judgment:


ORDER

SHEET G.A.No.1251 of 2012 W.P.No.549 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KRISHNA KUKMAR RUNGTA & ANR.

Versus Petitioner RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :

16. h May, 2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.Kallol Basu, Adv.For Respondent : Mr.Jishnu Saha with Mr.Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adversus Mr.Basu, learned Counsel appearing in support of the respondents, submits that the concerned bank authorities could not comply with the order for some difficulty on their part.

There are several parties who could not be served in time and that is the reason for such delay.

However, Mr.Basu prays for time to conclude the hearing.

Mr.Basu, also prays for modification of the last portion of the order wherein it was made clear by this Court that in the event the respondent authorities do not decide the case within the specified time, it would be presumed that the name of the writ petitioner is removed from the list of willful defaulteRs.Mr.Saha, appearing on behalf of Mr.Krishna Kumar Rungta and Mr.Manish Rungta, submits that the hearing was not made as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court and accordingly his clients’ names presumed to have been removed.

In case the last portion of the order is modified, his client will suffer.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submissions.

In my considered view, for the ends of Justice, the bank authorities should be given some time to complete the hearing.

The bank authorities will hear the matter on 1st June, 2012 and they are permitted to issue notice for giving intimation to all the interested parties.

I make it clear that in case the decision goes against the writ petitioneRs.there would be no such presumption as directed in the order dated 13th February, 2012.

The application is disposed of.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J.) K.

Banerjee, A.R.[C.R.].


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //