AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aparesh Kumar Singh
I.A. No. 3218/2011
The petitioner seeks to incorporate certain additional prayers as indicated in para 5 of the present application as per which he claims that he was required to pay a lesser sum for one time settlement under RBI OTS 2003 instead of the sum demanded by the respondent bank. The writ petition was preferred for direction upon the bank to takeover the hypothecated stock in trade/inventory said to be illegally taken over by the BICICO (respondent no. 4) in exercise of powers u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, as the State Bank of India had first charge on the said goods. Petitioner had also prayed for certain other reliefs.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, it appears that the additional prayer sought to be incorporated in the main writ application are related to the main relief and if allowed, would not cause prejudice to the cause of the respondent, neither would change the nature of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed to incorporate the said amendment in the main writ petition at relevant place and file a amended writ petition, within a period of two weeks. Respondents are at liberty to file their response to the amended prayer as well. I.A stands disposed of.