Full Text
Translation output
$-35 & 36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C)961/2019
M/S FIBRE RESOURCES Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar and Mr.Gautam Singh,Advs.
CONT.CAS(C)961/2019
M/S FIBRE RESOURCES Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar and Mr.Gautam Singh,Advs.
VERSUS
SURESH CHAND GAUTAM & ORS Respondents
Through: Ms.Medha Tandon,Adv.with Mr. S.C. Gautam,ChiefManager,Bank of
India.
(36)
Through: Ms.Medha Tandon,Adv.with Mr. S.C. Gautam,ChiefManager,Bank of
India.
(36)
CONT.CAS(C)962/2019
M/S TRADE LINKS(REGD) Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar and Mr.Gautam Singh,Advs.
M/S TRADE LINKS(REGD) Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sagar and Mr.Gautam Singh,Advs.
VERSUS
SURESH CHAND GAUTAM & ORS Respondents
Through: Ms.Medha Tandon,Adv.with Mr. S.C. Gautam,ChiefManager,Bank of
India.
Through: Ms.Medha Tandon,Adv.with Mr. S.C. Gautam,ChiefManager,Bank of
India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
02.12.2019 Mr. Sagar, Id.^counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have violated the specific directions given by the Id. Single Judge vide its order dated 17.09.2019 inasmuch as no hearing has come to be given to the petitioner before deciding the matter and communicating it vide letter reference no. ANR/ADV/2019-20/REST/FRy25 dated 15.10.2019, which forms part of the paper book as Annexure P-11. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that though the petitioner was given hearings but another hearing can be given if so required by the petitioner.
2019:DHC:7850
■^sm
"figf its m Mr. Sagar on his part submits that in the event the petitioner comes to be given a hearing as suggested, the matter would not be required to be carried any further and that in view of the submissions made, the instant contempt petition may be disposed of.
In view of the foregoing submissions, the petition stands disposed off accordingly. Of course, the respondent - bank shall take a fresh decision having afforded an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner.
A. K. CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 02,2019 acm 2019:DHC:7850
02.12.2019 Mr. Sagar, Id.^counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have violated the specific directions given by the Id. Single Judge vide its order dated 17.09.2019 inasmuch as no hearing has come to be given to the petitioner before deciding the matter and communicating it vide letter reference no. ANR/ADV/2019-20/REST/FRy25 dated 15.10.2019, which forms part of the paper book as Annexure P-11. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that though the petitioner was given hearings but another hearing can be given if so required by the petitioner.
2019:DHC:7850
■^sm
"figf its m Mr. Sagar on his part submits that in the event the petitioner comes to be given a hearing as suggested, the matter would not be required to be carried any further and that in view of the submissions made, the instant contempt petition may be disposed of.
In view of the foregoing submissions, the petition stands disposed off accordingly. Of course, the respondent - bank shall take a fresh decision having afforded an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner.
A. K. CHAWLA, J DECEMBER 02,2019 acm 2019:DHC:7850
JUDGMENT