Miss. Palak Sunil Arawal v. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Through Manager, Somalwada, Nagpur
2025:BHC-NAG:3949-DB 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.92 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2023 Palak Sunil Agrawal -Vs- State Bank of India ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Mahendra Limaye, counsel for the petitioner/s. Mr.Bhushan Mohta and Mr.Anand Parchure, counsel for respondent.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15th April, 2025.
1.
Heard.
2.
In compliance with the order dated 01.04.2025, the Deputy General Manager of the State Bank of India, Nagpur has filed an affidavit thereby explaining the delay in reporting the compliance of the order dated 16/12/2024. 3.
The fact remains that the order dated 16/12/2024 was ultimately complied on 31/03/2025.
4.
It appears from the affidavit that the Branch Manager, where the petitioner was holding his account, though has
2/3 communicated with the Competent Authority of the State Bank of India at Hyderabad, there is a delay on the part of the authority at Hyderabad.
5.
The affidavit is silent on as to what action has been proposed against the authority who has failed to comply the order at Hyderabad, at least a default report against such authority ought to have been filed in the matter of reporting timely compliance of the order which has prompted the petitioner to approach before this Court. 6.
In this background, we deem it appropriate to saddle the costs of Rs.3000/-(rupees three thousand only) on the State Bank of India with whom the petitioner was operating his account. The said amount of costs be deposited with the Legal Aid Services Authority High Court, Nagpur within a period of three weeks from today.
7.
Needless to clarify that, it shall be open for the respondent/State Bank of India to recover the costs from the Officer responsible for non-compliance of the order of the Court in a timely manner. The contempt petition accordingly stands disposed of.
3/3 8.
The compliance report be placed on record by the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. In case, if the report is not so placed about deposit of costs, the Court will be constrained to revive the Contempt Petition.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2025 10:49:04