AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who was
the respondent in the contempt proceedings and the writ
petitioner, as well as the learned counsel for the Bank.
2.Learned counsel for the bank submits that they are not
interested in the appellant''s bus. They are interested in
payment of their dues. So long as adequate provision is made
for payment of the dues they do not gain anything by seizing or
detaining the bus.
3.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that by surrendering the bus no one will gain in as much as it
would deprive the appellant the source of income using which
he would liquidate the dues thus depriving the bank of its
money. It would of no gain to the bank as by holding the bus
they do not get the money. On the other hand, if the bus is
released to the appellant, the appellant can make money and
repay the loan.
4.We think that the submission of the appellant has to be
accepted. As per the writ court''s direction, for the release of
the vehicle which has been seized by the bank, the petitioner
was directed to pay 50% of the total dues of about Rs.47 lakhs,
i.e., about 23.5 lakhs on or before 10.5.2017. It is not in
dispute that the appellant paid this amount in full and hence
got release of the bus. Thereafter, the balance was to be paid
in six equal monthly installments, last of which was
November, 2017. Except for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs paid after
the initiation of the contempt proceedings no other payment
has been effected.
5.It is for that, the contempt proceedings were initiated by the
bank. Even though the appellant sought some more time to
pay the installments as his commercial vehicle had been lying
seized for long and took some time to be repaired before it
could be plied, the time was refused. The appellant was given
one day''s time to clear the balance or surrender the vehicle. This order was passed yesterday. He was to make payment
today or surrender the vehicle today.
6.Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that
upon the undertaking been given by the appellant today in
court that he would liquidate the entire dues outstanding by
30.11.2017, which was the date of the last installment as per
the learned Single Judge, we direct that the order of the
learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings would not
operate. If the appellant fails to clear off the entire dues by
30.11.2017, he would without demur surrender the vehicle
with the bank on 1.12.2017 and he would have no excuse or
cause to make any grievance thereafter.
The order of the learned Single is thus modified in the manner
above and this appeal stands disposed of.