AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Patel, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred against the order, passed by the learned Sub JudgeII, Bokaro dated 21st June, 2010 whereby, the Petitioners are directed to keep alive the bank guarantee, which was given in pursuance of withdrawal of sizeable amount for more than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This direction initially, was given by this Court while finally disposing of W.P.(C) No. 104 of 2007.
The direction given by this Court reads as under:
...
Petitioner is directed to deposit the principal amount, within two weeks, which the Respondents will be entitled to withdraw against Bank Guarantee, which they will keep renewed....
Thus, in the aforesaid paragraph, the word ''Respondents'' means the present Petitioner, who has withdrawn sizeable amount by the order of this Court on a condition to give a bank guarantee and keep it alive. On the basis of such condition, learned trial court has passed the impugned order to keep the bank guarantee alive. In view of these facts, No. error has been committed by the learned Sub JudgeII, Bokaro, while passing the impugned order.
Moreover, the present Petitioner has never preferred an application for modification of the order, passed by this Court dated 15th May, 2007 in WP (C) No. 104 of 2007. Unless that order is modified, trial court cannot take any deviation when such a sizeable amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is choosing not to give a bank guarantee, there is No. option, but, to deposit the amount, which is withdrawn.
There is No. substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.