3's? '41^1,1iui, ^flw'is, Riciwy -?t^^^c:/apo7L HlinishKltn ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 Rl<3'& sn^T^iT R-lichSTI^T g>« flfer i,.^ ^' sn^rOTciwHfia' +iiilcf41-) mRit' ^ teA ^RRSR ^sri^TSTi^r WRIT PBTtlTION No. 206/2007 Petitioners 1 M/s. fhroi Hari R/o. 2 Hariyali Restaurant, Bilaspur igh Proprietor Shamim Alunad, S/o. Abdul Wahid, aged about 45 years, A-iubedkar Road, Bilaspur, TahsU and ipistrict Buaspur (C.G.) Shaoym. Ahinnd, Son of Hazi JAfodul Waujp, siyed about 45 years, R/o. Amb^dkar Road, BUaspur, T'ahsil aud Distt< Bilaspur(C.G.) | Versus 1 Respondents 1, Baiik] of Baroda, A Corporate Unit Under Baiikfag Cos. (Acquisition aiid Transfer of Undej-takm^ Act, 1970, Braach Linlc Road Bilas^ur (C.G.) fhrough its Maaager Head Office Bhadavi Baroda (Gujrajq 2- Reseijve Banlc of India, through Oovemor, Hcw IDelui Unicu). of India, fhiough iSecrftaiy to Miiuspj;/ of BanMng aad Insuraace, New Delhil BEF-ORE: KON'BLE 11-4-2007 5HRI DHIRBNDRA MI^HRA, J Shri J.S. Baraik, Advo^ate for the applicaats. | Heard. ' | i By fhis writ;petition, |fhe petitioners are seeking reUef of issuance ol appropnate wnt ^ainst the respondent-Bauk aud set aside the recovery; proceedi|ag of ttie toaa amouint which was uutiated even after the busi^iess of restauraat of Ifhe petttioncrs 000 ,(;! •s:i^'C('flSF%^'-'7 75^ •^WWti, fl'^WI'S., ^iftWy. . w'P-Cc^-No . ^t'6/^o W^vi\ *HI*"---------------"-'--^ 200 3n^r iisw (ijciF-is(<giT) a;n^i.'SHft:tig; 'tWTSiroi •SW ¥- TOilW^toaii^r was closed after 21-11-1990 tad furfher a direction to fhe respondents to pay damages t^wards mental and physical ^ony suffered by the petitioners. Leamed counsel for the purposes of ruimiag busiues oblained loaa Irom the responde|at-Baiik. In piirsuance ofthe loan, they hypothecated valuable proij>erty with the Baak, hcwever fhey could not pay the loaa ainount as their business remained respondent-Bank to release th they could sell the same iu oper( recoveiy proceeding against the| q>i<<Iin4i iiifii ^ fyS <Fi|^i< ^srRpTsn^T petitioners subinits fhat for the i of restauraut, the petitioncrs ^s per stipulation of the agreemeut closed aad they appUed the ir hypofhecated property so that market and pay fhe loaa, however the Baak did not accede to tbeSf request and ultimately instituted petitioners and obtained a decree of Rs. 9 lacs aad on fhe strengfh of the decree, fhey have ah-eady rccovered a sum of Rs. 13 lacs. i have heard leamed coii4sel for the petitioners. The petition relates to a contract agreeiue|it whertby the respondent-Baak advaaced loan to the petitioners] pay loan, recoveiy proceediagsj and a decree was passed by recoveiy proceeding is pendia^ and on failiire of the petitioners to as per agreement were iaitiated ftie Competent Court. The matter relates to the traDsactioii date ^iack 1990 aad fhe instaat petition bas been ffled in the year 2Q07. It is not in dispute that no before auy other forum aad the GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.000/ XI-HC—78 ani?i ?;[ [t;-)i'* W 31R5I s&HI=» ~t. ¥^ -ySSf ^||<i)|^<t^ Q-rflwiio, (s|(yiiy^< ..^l:^o:....H.t>..:...3£A/.^'t sn^yr IH^? Tsiiwgfta an^r amount against fhe loaa Bank. In the circuiastance! WL t&e present niatter ui Court. The petition is disiai^sed at admission stage. *W(ct<i1-< TV^! iffWt^ ^atRnsn^i is ahcady reaUzed by fhe respondent , this Court is aot incliaed to iiiterferer exercise of jurisdiction vested to fhis D^dnraTsbra judSe