- (1.)THIS writ petition reveals as to what extent the litigants have the audacity to abuse the process of the Court without any hesitation as if it is their right to use, abuse or misuse the process of the Court, merely because the forum is readily available.
(2.)THE petitioner-company had taken certain loan from the Union Bank of India. The said loan amount was not repaid, therefore proceedings, for recovery of about Rs. 3 crores had been initiated against it. Instead of filing appeal, a writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 7654/2008 was filed challenging the notices/orders passed by the opposite parties bank dated 25-2-2008, (Annex. 5) to this writ petition raising a demand of Rs. 2,91,08,200v- (Rupees Two crores, ninety one lacs, eight thousand and two hundred) and dated 21-5-2008, (Annex. 7) to this writ petition, which is a notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). When the matter was taken up, a statement was made at the Bar admitting the liability but submitted that the petitioner Was willing to deposit the entire amount if some breathing time was granted to it and to show its bona fide it was stated that the petitioner was willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs immediately. Thus, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of on 5-8-2008 in terms of the following order : this writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,91,08,200/ -. He admits liability but it is not possible for him to deposit the entire amount. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in case this Court gives some order directing the petitioner to deposit a substantial amount the petitioner is willing to deposit the same and in case he moves an application before the opposite parties-Bank for fixing easy instalments that may be considered. We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties-Bank who assures that in case the petitioner deposits a substantial amount and moves an application it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. However, in case the petitioner does not deposit the substantial amount, the question of considering his application for fixing easy instalment does not arise. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakh) within a period of two months from today, the opposite parties-Bank shall adjust the entire amount deposited by the petitioner till now and issue a fresh statement of account and then consider his application for fixing minimum three instalments. In case the petitioner does not deposit the said substantial amount the opposite parties-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. For a period of ten weeks no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner. "
(3.)THE earlier writ petition was filed by one of the Directors of the company, namely, Arjun Kumar Rout. This writ petition has been filed through another Director, namely, Smt. Kamala Rout, who" is wife of another Director Shri Arjun Kumar Rout, who filed the earlier writ petition, contending that legal issues had not been agitated in the earlier writ petition, and therefore this petition has been filed for quashing the same notices which were under challenge in the earlier writ petition.