Delhi High Court
Raju Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 February, 2017
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 343/2017
RAJU SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Paney and Mr.
Prakash Verma, Advs. with petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC for UOI
with Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai, Adv.
Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber with Ms.
Poonam Gupta, Advs. for R-3 & 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 20.02.2017
1. Pursuant to the last order, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned
counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Indian
Bank and states that he has been nominated by the Bank to accept advance
copies of petitions filed in the High Court and his name has been duly
displayed on the website of the High Court for future reference.
2. Though notice of the petition has not yet been issued, counter
affidavit stands filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4/Bank wherein it is
stated that a term loan was disbursed to the petitioner to purchase certain
machineries, which were hypothecated to the Bank as a primary security.
3. In the month of June, 2016, the petitioner had approached the Bank
for disbursal of the working capital limit of the loan. Prior to the said
disbursement, as a part of the due diligence process, the Branch Manager of
the Bank had visited the premises of the petitioner on 22nd June, 2016 to
ascertain the proper utilization of the funds already disbursed but found that
none of the machineries claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner
were lying at the site and those found there, did not match with the
description of the goods purchased by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4/Bank states that the
Bank officers had visited the premises of the petitioner i.e. G1/34, GT
Karnal Industrial Area, Delhi as recently as in January, 2017, and once
again he was unavailable there. They discovered that the petitioner had
shifted his premises to some other place and was not even found to be
residing at the address mentioned in the Memo of Parties of the present
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, denies the above and states on
instructions that the petitioner is continuing to reside at the address
mentioned in the Memo of Parties. However, he admits that the petitioner
has left the premises from where he was carrying on his work, and moved to
WZ-313A, Shakurpur Village, Delhi-110034 where the machineries in
question are presently lying.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that an opportunity may be
given to the petitioner to meet the bank officers of the respondents No. 3 and
4 with all relevant details so that they can visit the new premises and satisfy
themselves as to whether the machineries in question are available there.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the consent of the
parties. The petitioner is directed to visit the office of the respondent no.
4/Bank on 22nd February, 2017 at 3.00 P.M. and meet the Branch Manager
along with all the relevant documents.
8. The respondents No. 3 and 4/Bank shall verify as to whether the
machineries in question, already purchased by the petitioner from the loan
amount extended by the Bank, is available at his premises. After due
diligence, the petitioner's case shall be considered by the Bank for disbursal
of the balance loan amount towards the working capital, if satisfied.
9. The petition is disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under
the signatures of the Court Master.
HIMA KOHLI, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2017
sd/ap
