IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10628 of 2009 GULAB COLD STORAGE PVT.LTD. THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR NAMELY KALAM KHAN HAVING POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY BOARD OF DIRECTOR AT CHAKMANJHAN, P.O. BELSAND, P.S. BARAULI, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ REGISTERED OFFICE GULAB COLD STORE PVT. LTD. G.T. ROAD, HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL. Versus 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA GOPALGANJ BRANCH AT & P.O. GAOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 2. AUTHORISED OFFICER CUM CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GOPALGANJ BRANCH AT AND P.O. GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 3. PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, THE STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 8 16/04/2010 A detailed order dated 18.02.2010 came to be passed by this Court on a categorical affidavit and undertaking filed by the petitioner. The Court directed the respondent Bank to remove the lock and key of the Cold Storage in question provided the petitioner stuck to his commitment of re-payment on the dates agreed upon. A sum of rupees ten lacs was to be deposited within a week from the date of the order, additional rupees fifteen lacs by 31st March, 2010 and the balance amount of rupees twentyfive lacs by 31st August, 2010. This total payment do not add up to the final outstanding amount of the borrower but that was the minimum amount which the Bank agreed to accept to open - 2 - the lock of the Cold Storage. They did not want to give any more indulgence to the present petitioner with regard to the default. It was only after the commitment was given to the Court in an affidavit, the Court passed such an order giving relief to the petitioner. There is already a default or breach of the undertaking given by him to this Court. I.A. No. 3204 of 2010 has now been filed seeking a longer time to deposit rupees fifteen lacs which was to be deposited by 31st March, 2010. The Court is not impressed by the reasoning or the reasons for not fulfilling the obligation in terms of the earlier direction of this Court. There is a clear breach of undertaking given to this Court. That by itself is good enough for this Court not only to initiate a proceeding of contempt against the petitioner but also deny him the benefit of interim protection which was granted to him on 18.02.2010. The issue being what it is, no further adjudication is required to be made in the writ application also. I.A. No. 3204 of 2010 is hereby rejected. Writ application too is dismissed with liberty to the respondent Bank to take action - 3 - in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which this Court is not willing to exercise in the circumstances stated above, he may take appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum may be under the Special Act which is the SARFAESI Act. Writ application stands dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)