SBCWP No.8485/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8485/2010. Girdhar Gopal Bajoria Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. Date of Order:- December 13, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Salecha for the petitioner. Shri A.Porwal for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri R.K. Mathur, Shri Rajendra Sharma & Shri Ashish Sharma for the respondents. ******* BY THE COURT:- Although, no part of cause of action in the present matter appear to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court however, even if matter is considered on merits, it is found petitioner has approached this Court challenging the letters dated 20/3/2010 (Ann.8) and 21/5/2010 (Ann.10) issued by the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. Petitioner is basically aggrieved by the action of the respondents in declaring him defaulter and on that basis, debarring him from availing credit facility from any other financial institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have played a fraud upon the banking institutions. SBCWP No.8485/10. 2 On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank and borrower submit that the matter was that of a guarantor and the dispute has been settled between the main borrower and the bank and they have already sent request to the Reserve Bank of India on 30/11/2010 to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of defaulters. In the light of the statement made by the respondents that they have already sent request to the Reserve Bank of India on 30/11/2010 for removing the name of the petitioner from the list of defaulters, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition. However, on the question of fraud and other issues pending before the Debt Recovery Recovery, Delhi, petitioner is free to avail any other remedy available to him in law. Writ petition is disposed and the letters dated 20/3/2010 (Ann.8) and 21/5/2010 (Ann.10) issued by the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi are set-aside in view of the statement made by the respondents and that those orders would not be enforced against the petitioner. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil