Shree Chhatrapati Rajashree Shahu Urban Bank Ltd., Beed Thr. Its Branch Manager And Others v. Sandeep S/O Jaibhim Boke And Another

8-CAW-2655-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2655 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5377 OF 2023 (Shree Chhatrapati Rajashree Shahu Urban Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shri Sandeep s/o Jaibhim Boke & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Shri R.S. Khobragade, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Parth Malviya, Counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1.

Shri S.C. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent no.2.

Shri Parth Sagdeo, Counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. .....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

OCTOBER 7, 2024 On previous date, following order was passed :

".

On 8/8/2024 following order was passed :

"

Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Greater Bombay Co- perative Bank Ltd., Mumbai and anr. vs. Dhillon P. Shah and Ors. 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 996, to contend that the respondent No.1 was under an obligation to deposit 50% of the amount of recovery certificate, even though he has challenged the order passed by authority below in the proceedings consequential to recovery certificate.

Counsel for the respondent No.1 seeks time to take instructions whether his client is ready to deposit 50% before this Court.

List in the week commencing from 26.08.2024."

2.

The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that Respondent No.1 is ready to deposit 50% of the amount of recovery certificate in this Court. The amount

8-CAW-2655-2024 be deposited within a period of two weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within stipulated period, Respondent No.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.5000/- per day on the delayed deposit.

3.

List the Petition in the week commencing from 21st October, 2024."

2] Respondent no.1 has filed application seeking extension of time on the ground that his client has no definite source of income.

3] If the statement is to be accepted, it is surprising as to how respondent no.1, on previous date, showed his willingness to deposit 50% of the amount of recovery certificate. The request for extension of time appears to be an attempt made to prolong the matter. 4] The application is accordingly rejected.

Respondent no.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- per day on the delayed deposit, as ordered by this Court. It is further made clear that if the amount is not deposited as agreed with delayed cost by 21/10/2024, the order impugned may be set aside.

5] List in the week commencing from 21/10/2024.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit