Binita Kumari And ANR v. The Punjab National Bank Through Its Zonal Manager Patna Head Office, Patna, Namely, S. K. Sinha An
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3459 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8499 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Binita Kumari, wife of Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village- Paindapur, Police Station- Rahui, District- Nalanda.
2. Kanchan Devi, wife of Prem Ranjan Kumar, resident of Village- Lal Bigha, Police Station- Kashichak, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Punjab National Bank through its Zonal Manager, Patna Head Office, Patna, namely, S. K. Sinha, son of name not known to the petitioners.
2. Narendra Kumar Sinha, son of name not known to the petitioners, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch at Bhaganbigha, District- Nalanda.
3. Shailesh Kumar Gupta, son of name not known to the petitioners, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch at Katrisarai, DistrictNalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 17-05-2017 Heard the parties.
By the order passed in the writ petition the petitioners were directed to present themselves before the Branch Manager and file their reply as to the money transfer in their account. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submitting that neither the petitioners could satisfy on the transaction nor were they prepared to furnish collateral security as stated in paragraph 24 of the show cause for the provisional release of the amount and that an FIR has been
Patna High Court MJC No.3459 of 2016 (3) dt.17-05-2017 instituted in the matter.
In my opinion if the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Bank on the money transfers nor ready for furnishing collateral security then they themselves are responsible for the delay and cannot be permitted to complain against bank's action. The fault lies with them entirely.
In the nature of contest existing, no cause for indulgence is made out for drawing contempt proceedings. The contempt application is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U