AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through virtual/physical mode.
The Bank has filed the present contempt alleging that the respondent-borrower has violated the directions contained in the order dated 3rd March, 2016, whereby the borrower was directed to produce the hypothecated vehicle as and when required by the Bank.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that that eventuality would have occasioned only if the borrower had deposited a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within four weeks of the order dated 3rd March, 2016, whereupon the Bank was required to take a decision for One Time Settlement and pending the said decision, no coercive steps were to be undertaken subject of course to produce the hypothecated vehicle for inspection as directed by the Bank. However concededly the borrower had not deposited the required amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for One Time Settlement and hence the conditional order had become inoperative, with the liberty to the Bank to proceed in accordance with law towards liquidating the account.
In view of the above, the CONTC is dismissed.
…………………………