IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2010 (MS)
Thakur Dan Singh Bisht Trust …………Petitioner.
Versus
Branch Manager, S.B.I., Mallital, Nainital & Ors. ………Respondents.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondents.
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Notices on behalf of both the respondents have been accepted by Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate.
The petitioner is a trust. The short contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Bank is not honouring the cheque issued by even the authorised person i.e. Chairman of the trust and asking further explanation such as to submit the bills against which the payment is being made. The contention of the petitioner is that this is totally uncalled for and the Bank has no authority to seek such an explanation from the petitioner.
Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is convincing. All the same for abundant precaution before an interim order can be passed, an opportunity must be given to the Bank to explain as to why such explanations are being sought from the petitioner. Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that this action of the Bank is purely to harass the petitioner.
1
2
List this matter on 8thFebruary, 2010 in the daily cause list.
The Bank must explain its conduct, as prima facie it appears to the Court that the explanation sought by the Bank are totally outside its jurisdiction. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Vacation Judge
8.1.2010
Rathour