AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J
Heard Mr K Vidyasagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Sunil Sanker, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance the entire proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 till the disposal of Ext.P4 representation.
iii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.
During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1st respondent Bank sanctioned One Time Settlement (for short, ‘OTS’) for payment of Rs.4.37 lakhs by the petitioner on or before 30.08.2023 towards the full and final settlement of the outstanding dues of the Bank in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner has honoured the said OTS by making payment of Rs.4.37 lakhs, for which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered two deposit receipts amounting to Rs.2.37 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs, respectively, dated 30.08.2023. The said documents tendered by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are taken on record and marked as
Since the petitioner has discharged the liability in terms of the OTS, the continuation of the SARFAESI proceedings would be wholly unjustified. Thus the present writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 are hereby quashed.