High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/28935/2018disposed of

M/S Ganpati Enterprises v. Bank Of India And ANR.

2018-12-19Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal,Mr. Justice Sudip Ahluwalia2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 28935 of 2018 Decided on : 19.12.2018 M/s Ganpati Enterprises . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

Bank of India and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the letter dated 29th October, 2018 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.2, whereby, the respondent-Bank has withdrawn the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS), which was intimated vide letter dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure P-12).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Bank after having accepted the OTS vide letter dated 24th September, 2018 (Annexure P-12) had revoked the same by way of impugned letter dated 29th October, 2018 (Annexure P-1), without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also urged by the learned counsel that the OTS floated by the respondentBank comes to an end on 31st December, 2018. 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detail and comprehensive representation, before respondent No.2, within three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, JAWALA RAM 2019.01.07 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 28935 of 2018 - 2 - raising all the pleas as sought to be raised in the present writ petition. It is, however, directed that in case such a representation is filed within the aforesaid stipulated time, then the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order within next seven days, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (SUDIP AHLUWALIA) JUDGE December 19, 2018 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.01.07 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh