M/S. Prabhakar Raw And Boiled Rice ... vs Maximus Arc Limited,
2022 Latest Caselaw 570 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: W.P. No.1244 of 2022

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                                 OFFICE
                                               ORDER

No DATE NOTE

2. 02.02.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J and B. S. BHANUMATHI, J

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) I.A.No.2 of 2022 Heard Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. S. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. The writ petition was disposed of on 19.01.2022 as per the terms recorded in the said judgment.

3. The petitioners have filed the interlocutory application, which has been listed for consideration seeking extension of time, which was indicated in the judgment dated 19.01.2022 for them to make payment of Rs.2.70 crores, which was to be done by 27.01.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the amount could not be deposited by 27.01.2022; however, the demand drafts were prepared two days later on 29.01.2022 and finally the last one, on 31.01.2022, for a total amount of Rs.2.70 crores as per the direction of the Court in the judgment dated 19.01.2022. It was submitted that the Court may grant indulgence for the reason that the delay was not willful and deliberate and most importantly such a huge amount took some extra time for being procured by the petitioners and demand draft has also been prepared in favour of the respondent no.1. It was submitted that unless the Court allows extension for deposit of the amount, the respondent no.1 will not accept the amount.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the Court had fixed the date 27.01.2022 and the petitioners having defaulted, do not deserve indulgence. However, on a query of the Court to learned counsel as to why in the larger public interest as also the interest of the respondent no.1 itself when Rs.2.70 crores is being sought to be deposited through demand draft, the Court may not consider the plea, learned counsel submitted that the Court may take a call on the same.

6. Having considered the matter, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer in the Interlocutory Application, taking an overall view of the matter and also the fact that the amount is more than what has been deposited by the auction purchaser.

7. Accordingly, the judgment dated 19.01.2022 stands modified to the extent that the time allowed for the petitioners to deposit Rs.2.70 crores with the respondent no.1 stands extended till 04.02.2022.

8. The rest of the order shall remain unchanged.

9. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2022 stands disposed of, in the aforementioned terms.

_________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)

_________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI, J)

C.C. today.

B/o. Pab.