AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that despite several adjournment denied the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish contact with the petitioner though he has sent letter under registered post as well.
The petitioner has initially approached this Court being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not handing over the possession of the property in connection with a unit M/s Anubhav Steel Pvt. situated at NH 33, Mango, Jamshedpur, Area 3 Bighas. Freehold land with building, plant and machinery, as according to the petitioner, despite fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the advertisement in its auction sale and depositing of Rs. 1.00 lac by way of demand draft as earnest money, the property was not transferred in his name and subsequently it was settled with the original promoter.
From the previous order dated 22nd March, 2011 it appears that due to subsequent development the petitioner became interested only in refund of the earnest money along with certain interest over the amount, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the respondent BSCICO was asked to produce a cheque of Rs. 1.00 lac as earnest money in Court. Counsel for the respondent produced the said cheque in the Court on 18.7.2012, although it was stated on his behalf that the cheque sent to the petitioner by registered post was returned unserved in the year 2002 itself. The counsel for the petitioner, in order to contact his client, took time again and again but as stated herein-above, the petitioner is not in touch with him.
In the circumstances, it appears that there is no provision to keep this writ petition pending. However, respondents are directed to keep the cheque in their custody and as and when the petitioner approaches them, the same may be handed over to him after validation. With the aforesaid observation and direction. the said petition is disposed of.