Delhi High Court
Pushpender Singh vs Central Bank Of India on 15 May, 2017
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4099/2017 & C.M. No. 17979/2017
PUSHPENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Chadha and
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates,
versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.A. Khan, Advocate with
Mr. J.C. Bunkar, Chief Manager, Central Bank of
India
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 15.05.2017
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 12.5.2017, on which
date it had been enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner if his client
was ready and willing to pay 25% of the demand notice issued by the
respondent/Bank, which would come to Rs.10 lacs (approximately).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner had stated on instructions from his
client that he may be granted some reasonable time to do so. To test the
bonafides of the petitioner, he was permitted to bring with him a demand
draft of Rs.5 lakh drawn in favour of the respondent/Bank, on the next date
of hearing i.e., today and it was further observed that only thereafter would
his request for making staggered payment in respect of the balance amount
of Rs.5 lakhs, be considered.
3. It is 3.30PM now but learned counsel for the petitioner states that his
client has yet to arrange the funds. The petitioner is not even present in
court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the malafides of the
petitioner can be seen from the fact that he has withheld material
information from the court to the effect that on 08.5.2017, when the
Receiver had visited the subject premises for taking over physical
possession, the petitioner and his family members had signed a document
that they will hand over the peaceful possession of the subject premises to
the Receiver, without seeking any further time for any reason, if granted
time upto 12.5.2017. Instead of abiding by the said undertaking, the
petitioner filed the present petition on 11.5.2017 and the same was listed for
admission on 12.5.2017.
5. There is not a whisper in the petition with regard to the aforesaid
undertaking given by the petitioner to the Receiver. The document written in
hand by the petitioner on 08.5.2017 and duly signed by him and his family
members is handed over by learned counsel for the respondent and is taken
on record.
6. Counsel for the petitioner states that he was not informed about
execution of any such document by the petitioner.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner in failing to
bring the demand draft of Rs.5 lakhs today, despite an assurances given on
the last date, we see no reason to grant him any further indulgence. We
decline to interfere in the impugned order dated 05.5.2017 passed by the
learned DRAT dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to deposit 25%
of the demanded amount.
8. The petition is dismissed along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 15, 2017
ap/rkb
