← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/695/2014disposed

Ash Narayan Singh And ANR. v. Vinod Singh And ORS.

2017-09-15The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.695 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8808 of 2014 ====================================================== 1.

Ash Narayan Singh, S/O Late Kamaldeo Sngh, Resident Of Village- Darihara, P.S- Dariapur, District- Chapra, At Present Posted As Peon, Land Development Bank, Dighwara Branch. 2.

Brij Nandan Prasad Shukla, S/O Late Bhagirath Shukla, Resident Of Bishunpur, P.S- Bidupur District- Vaishali, At Present Posted As Peon Land Development Bank, Hazipur, Branch. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Vinod Singh, Managing Director, Bihar State Land Development Bank, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Subash Singh, The Branch Manager, Dighwara Branch, Land Development Bank, Dighwara.

3.

Ram Krishna Singh, The Branch Manager, Hazipur Branch, Land Development Bank, Hazipur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 15-09-2017 During the course of the hearing today, we find that as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, entire amount has been paid to him and it is an admitted position. As far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, a cheque drawn in his name issued to be payable by the Canara Bank, Budh Marg, Patna to the tune of Rs.3,12,199/- is tendered to the counsel representing the petitioner No.1 and, now, in view of the aforesaid, nothing further remains to be done in this application for contempt. However, in case, the petitioners are not satisfied to the settlement made and if any

Patna High Court MJC No.695 of 2014(8) dt.15-09-2017 2/2 grievance is still subsisting, they may have liberty to agitate the matter in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, in view of the compliance reported by the respondents, this application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sunil/- U