Sri Ganganagar Oil and General Mills Vs. the Rajasthan State Co-operative Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 - section 18--special appeal--petitioner persuaded the court to issue notice of admission only by making a statement undertaking to pay rs. 10 lacs to the bank against his dues--order of auction stayed and 6 weeks time given to petitioner for depositing rs. 10 lacs--however petitioner resiled from his undertaking and inspite of taking further time of 6 weeks, not deposited the amount--petitioner has now come out with a fresh proposal of depositing rs. 50,000 per month instead of the amount stated by him at the time of admission--in the circumstances single judge rightly did not entertain the petitioner's petition--no interference called for.;special appeal dismissed - rajesh balia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the appellant. we do not find any merit in this case. the circumstances in which notice before admission was issued shows that the petitioner persuaded the court to issue notice only by making a statement undertaking to pay rs. 10 lacs to the bank against his dues. the order of issuance of notice reads as under:issue notice as the petitioner undertakes to deposit rs. 10 lacs with the respondent no. 3 within a period of six weeks from today. for a period of six weeks, the further proceedings in pursuance of the auction notice dated 6.9.2001 shall remain stayed.2. the petitioner mills was aggrieved because of attachment and auction of his property in pursuance of the attachment for recovery of a sum of rs. 27,23,470.71/-, found to be due to the ganganagar central co-operative bank limited, for availing the credit facilities from the bank. apparently, it appears that the court was not inclined to entertain the petition as the petitioner was buying time to make arrangement and for that purpose he stated before the court that if time is granted he will deposit rs. 10 lacs within 6 weeks with the respondents. obviously with these undertaking for the purpose of issuance of notice, the order of staying the auction for 6 weeks, the period given to the petitioner for depositing of rs. 10 lacs, was made, thus the court was persuaded on his undertaking to entertain the petition for consideration. the petitioner has resiled from his undertaking and inspite of taking further period of six weeks to deposit the amount he did not fulfil the undertaking and has now come out with a fresh proposal of depositing rs. 50,000/- per month nstead of the amount stated by him at the time of admission.3. in these circumstances, the learned single judge thought it fit not to entertain the petition. we cannot find any error in the order refusing to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction in such circumstances.4. thus the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.