Daily Alert for 19-01-2024
Supreme Court of India
Case Name: C.A. NO.-000600-000600 / 2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
Parties: RAJA GOUNDER AND ORS. Vs M.SENGODAN AND ORS.
Summary: The appeal pertains to a partition suit where the Appellants claim a share as children of the deceased, though not coparceners. The Trial Court and High Court dismissed their claim due to the failure to establish a valid marriage between their mothers and the deceased. However, the Supreme Court held that even if the marriages were void or voidable, the children would still be entitled to a share in the property that would have been allotted to the deceased in a notional partition. The Court relied on Revanasiddappa (2023) 10 SCC 1, and set aside the judgments under appeal. A preliminary decree of partition was passed, allotting equal shares to the Appellants in the half share of the deceased in the plaint schedule properties.
Case Name: CRL.A. NO.-000303-000303 / 2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Parties: KUSHA DURUKA Vs STATE OF ODISHA
Summary: The court, in this 2024 decision, reiterated the importance of truth and honesty in legal proceedings. It highlighted that concealing material facts from the court or misrepresenting information is equivalent to fraud and contempt, interfering with the administration of justice. The case involved a litigant who had suppressed the fact that charges had been framed against him, leading to the rejection of his bail application. The court emphasized that advocates must assist the court fairly and should not resort to jugglery, manipulation, or misrepresentation. It warned that such conduct would result in the dismissal of the petition and possible initiation of contempt proceedings.
Case Name: CRL.A. NO.-000330-000330 / 2024
Judge(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Parties: JAY SHRI Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Summary: In this 2024 Supreme Court decision, the key legal finding is that a breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense under Sections 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the transaction's outset. The court emphasized the importance of differentiating civil disputes from criminal cases and discouraged using criminal prosecution to pressure settlement of civil claims. The accused, Jay Shri and Hitesh Kela, were granted anticipatory bail for offenses under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, subject to terms and conditions determined by the trial court.
Delhi High Court
Case Name: W.P.(C)-796/20242024:DHC: 388-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO, JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
Parties: AJAY BUDANIYA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Summary: In this case, the court reviewed a medical examination report declaring the petitioner unfit due to hypertension and tachycardia. The petitioner challenged the report, claiming that regulations requiring hospitalization for observation were not followed. The court set aside the report and directed the respondents to constitute a fresh Review Medical Board, ensuring it complies with applicable guidelines. The petition was disposed of, and a connected application became infructuous. The ratio decidendi emphasizes adherence to regulations in medical examination reports and the power of courts to intervene when regulations are not followed.
Case Name: BAIL APPLN.-4142/20232024:DHC:395
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Parties: KHUSHAL SINGH @GANGU Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail, asserting that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, and the allegations against the petitioner are serious. The petitioner, a local resident, is accused of making inappropriate gestures, winking, and pressing the chest of the victim. The court noted the victim's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and the confirmation of her date of birth, which confirms her minor status. The CCTV footage, although confirming the victim's presence near the location, does not cover the exact place of the offense. The petitioner has evaded investigation since the incident and failed to cooperate, which contributed to the dismissal of the bail application.
Case Name: BAIL APPLN.-2199/20232024:DHC:399
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Parties: RAMAN ABROL Vs THE STATE, GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
Summary: In a bail application seeking release from custody under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court denied relief due to unframed charges. The court upheld its previous decision, finding no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the prior bail application. The petitioner remains at liberty to file a fresh bail application post-framing of charges or upon emergence of new grounds. The court's ruling focuses on the principle that bail is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy subject to legal and judicial scrutiny.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-4180/20232024:DHC:418
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Parties: R. KRISHNAMURTHY AND CO. Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.
Summary: The court dismissed a petition challenging a five-year debarment order from participating in tenders issued by a municipality. The petitioner, a sub-contractor, had failed to complete construction of underground multi-level car parkings within the stipulated time frame, causing inconvenience to the public. The court found that the punishment was not disproportionate or shocking, and that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice issued prior to the debarment order. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner had not demonstrated that the order could not have been passed by the municipality or that it was unduly harsh or disproportionate.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-2544/20112024:DHC:386
Judge(s): JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
Parties: RAM NATH Vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Summary: The court ruled that the cancellation of the allotment of a flat, after having restored it and mutated it in the petitioner's name, is bad in law. The respondent's decision to cancel the allotment without following the principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause notice was held to be arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner's rights. The court quashed the cancellation of the allotment and issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent to issue a final demand letter and hand over possession of the flat to the petitioner.
Case Name: CRL.M.C.-2792/20232024:DHC:380
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Parties: DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE Vs CHIRAG GOEL
Summary: The High Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted to Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel in a case concerning offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to their involvement in a serious economic offence involving the evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the tune of Rs. 218 crores. The accused were found to have fraudulently obtained GST refunds and utilized input tax credit without actual supply of goods, with the intention to evade tax. The court observed that the accused were habitual offenders and had attempted to leave the country without permission, violating bail conditions.
Case Name: CRL.M.C.-6801/20232024:DHC:384
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Parties: MANISH GOYAL Vs DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE
Summary: The court upheld the grant of bail to the accused Manish Goyal, involved in an economic offence related to GST evasion. The court found no infirmity in the initial order granting bail, despite the accused's non-appearance on a couple of investigation dates after bail. The accused is directed to comply with the bail conditions and may face cancellation of bail if he fails to appear in response to future summons. The DGGI's plea to cancel the bail was dismissed, while Manish Goyal's petition seeking setting aside of the cancellation order was allowed.
Case Name: CRL.REV.P.-224/20212024:DHC:382
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
Parties: SAPNA PAUL Vs ROHIN PAUL
Summary: The High Court reviewed a revision petition filed by the wife, challenging a remand order issued by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court had remanded the case back to the Trial Court without fixing interim maintenance or deciding key issues. The High Court criticized the Appellate Court for remanding the case without appropriate reasons and causing undue delay. It was held that remand is only justified when specific factual inquiries are needed, which was not the case here. The High Court then fixed interim maintenance and directed the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits within a year.
Case Name: W.P.(CRL)-336/20232024:DHC:398
Judge(s): JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Parties: MAKSOOD AHMAD Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Summary: In this case, the core legal issue concerned the validity of a marriage and conversion for the purposes of quashing an FIR. The court found that the prosecutrix was not legally divorced from her first husband, rendering her second marriage illegal. The court emphasized the importance of presenting accurate information to the court and highlighted that heinous offenses cannot be quashed based on settlement, even if the victim's family has agreed to it, due to their impact on society. The court ultimately decided not to quash the FIR based on the nature and gravity of the allegations, which included sexual assault and intoxication without consent.
Case Name: BAIL APPLN.-3772/20232024:DHC:379
Judge(s): JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
Parties: BHARAT YADAV Vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS.
Summary: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a murder case. The petitioner was accused of hatching a conspiracy to murder the deceased due to an ongoing rivalry between them. Although no specific role in the conspiracy was ascribed to the petitioner, the court found that the petitioner's presence in a CCTV footage at a hotel in Amritsar, Punjab on the next day of the incident, along with the co-accused, was relevant and indicated his complicity in the crime. The court also noted that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and that the investigation against him was still at a nascent stage. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to unravel the entire conspiracy and to arrest other persons who helped the accused in the commission of the crime.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-825/20242024:DHC:409
Judge(s): JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Parties: NEENA YADAV Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Summary: In the case of a writ petition challenging the recruitment process, the court found that such challenges are barred under the Administrative Tribunal Act and thus the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner, who missed the deadline for a renotified examination, requested the petition be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court granted this request, directing the petition to be renumbered as an original application before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, for consideration on January 23, 2024. The core legal reasoning (ratio decidendi) is the bar on challenging recruitment processes under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, when they are subject to the Administrative Tribunal Act's provisions.
Case Name: W.P.(C)-802/20242024:DHC:408
Judge(s): JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Parties: PINKY YADAV Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Summary: The High Court of Delhi held that challenges to recruitment processes of Central or Delhi Government, falling under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965, are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. A petition concerning a missed deadline for a renotified examination was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, for consideration as an original application. The decision emphasizes the jurisdictional limits of the High Court and the importance of channeling such disputes through the Administrative Tribunal system.
Case Name: W.P.(CRL)-11/20242024:DHC:417-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Parties: SMT. RATNA DEVI Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI & ORS.
Summary: In a writ petition for habeas corpus, the court dismissed the petition as the alleged detainee, of legal age, voluntarily stayed with the respondent. The petitioner's daughter, aged 22, confirmed she was not unlawfully detained and wished to remain with her friend, not the husband or in-laws. The husband also requested the closure of his missing person complaint. The court found no evidence of illegal detention and allowed the daughter to exercise her freedom to choose her residence.
Case Name: W.P.(CRL)-3515/20232024:DHC:416-DB
Judge(s): JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
Parties: SMT. RAM BETI Vs THE STATE & ORS.
Summary: In this criminal writ petition, the court found that a missing person complaint had already been registered at a police station in Rajasthan, and the individual went missing from that jurisdiction. The court determined no further order was required, and the petition was disposed of, maintaining that the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue remedies before appropriate authorities. The critical legal principle upheld centers on the jurisdiction of police stations to investigate missing person cases within their respective jurisdictions.
Case Name: C.R.P.-148/20232024:DHC:392
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: JAI SHARMA & ANR. Vs RAMWATI & ANR.
Summary: The High Court allowed a revision petition, condoning a 51-day delay in filing, and permitted the petitioners (plaintiffs) to produce additional documents in a suit concerning property ownership. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, as the documents do not prejudice the defendants and do not strengthen the plaintiffs' case. The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 and an additional Rs. 5,000 if they file an affidavit regarding the documents.
Case Name: C.R.P.-90/20222024:DHC:390
Judge(s): JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Parties: DEEPAK AGGARWAL AND ANR Vs GYAN CHAND SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
Summary: The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition against the impugned orders, which had abated a suit due to the plaintiff's failure to apply for setting aside the abatement within the specified time. The Court clarified that where a review application is dismissed, maintaining the original decree/order, only an appeal is maintainable, not a civil revision. The order passed by the trial court was found to be appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(k) of the CPC. The Court granted the petitioners the liberty to institute an appeal as per the law.
Bombay High Court
Case Name: WP/429/2024
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Parties: SHRIKANT BALASO PATIL AND ANR Vs STATE CO OP ELECTION AUTHORITY AND ORS
Summary: The court dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of an election's returning officer. The petition argued that the officer was disqualified because they were also on the panel of auditors, which is forbidden by Rule 76-B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014. The court, however, found that the officer was never appointed as an auditor for the society in question and thus did not fall under the disqualification criteria. The voters' list prepared by the officer, which included members marked as deceased, was also found to be valid. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Name: WP/13605/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE V. V. KANKANWADI, JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Parties: PRAKASH SHIVRAM NIKUM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Summary: The petitioners were denied caste certificates as Scheduled Tribe due to inconsistencies in their caste entries in documents from the pre-Constitutional period to recent times. The court found that the petitioners could not support their caste claims as 'Tokre Koli', Scheduled Tribe. The court clarified that the scope of enquiry at the stage of issuance of a caste certificate is based on prima facie evidence, while the determination of the validity of a caste certificate requires deeper inquiry. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in it.
Case Name: APEAL/727/2002
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. WAGHWASE
Parties: RAHIBAI ARJUN PAWAR and ANR. Vs STATE OF MAH.
Summary: In this case, the High Court examined the conviction of two individuals for offenses under sections 304 Part II and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were accused of causing harm to the deceased, which eventually led to her death, following an altercation. The Court overturned the trial court's decision, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a homicidal death beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the deceased suffered from epilepsy and was in a decomposed state at the time of the autopsy. The court found that there was no premeditated act, and the appellants did not have the intention or knowledge that their actions could lead to the victim's death. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to offenses under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and a fine.
Case Name: CRA/549/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Parties: BATA INDIA LIMITED, THR. AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Vs BINDIYA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
Summary: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a civil revision application, upheld the appellate court's decision ordering a company to pay mesne profits to a cooperative housing society. The company was the tenant of a shop in the society's building since 1958. The society terminated the tenancy in 2001 and filed an eviction suit, which was decreed in 2005. The company appealed, but the decree was upheld. A mesne profits application was filed in 2010, which the society won in 2015, with the company being ordered to pay mesne profits at a rate of ₹1,07,040/- per month. Both parties appealed, and in 2022, the appeal court partly allowed the society's appeal, increasing the amount of mesne profits to ₹1,24,099/- per month. The company then filed the present civil revision application, challenging the common judgment and order. The core legal issue in this case is whether the company is liable to pay mesne profits at the rate of ₹1,24,099/- per month for the period from 22nd January 2002 to 31st March 2012 along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding that the company is indeed liable to pay the mesne profits at the aforementioned rate and terms. The company's contentions regarding limitations, the period for which mesne profits can be granted, and the quantum of mesne profits were not accepted by the High Court. The company was given three months to pay the arrears or seek relief from the Apex Court.
Calcutta High Court
Case Name: FMAT/390/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI, JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Parties: PRASAD ECOSTRUCTURE L.L.P. vs CITY DEVCON PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.
Summary: The High Court held that an order transferring a suit to a commercial court by a civil court, under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is not an order passed by a commercial court and thus not appealable under Section 13 of the Act. However, such an order can be challenged as an appeal under Order 43(1)(a) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it is akin to returning a plaint to be presented to the proper court. This judgment partially disposes of the appeal, extending the existing interim order till 29th February, 2024 or further order.
Case Name: CO/1085/2022
Judge(s): JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Parties: AJIT KUMAR BHUNIA @ AJIT BHUNIA & ORS. vs PRABHASH CHANDRA MAITY & ANR.
Summary: The court dismissed a revisional application concerning a dispute over land under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, affirming the appellate court's decision. The application, filed by petitioners who bought land from a co-sharer, was deemed not maintainable since the entire share was transferred, and the registration of the sale deed completed in 1996, long before the pre-emption application in 2008. The petitioners failed to demonstrate how the appellate court's findings were perverse regarding the date of transfer and the timeliness of the pre-emption case.
Case Name: CO/1841/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Parties: SMT. JHARNA PATRA. vs SRI SANJIB GAYEN & ORS.
Summary: The court, in this case, addressed the validity of allowing a counter-claim when the cause of action arises after the filing of the written statement. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a defendant to set up a counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff if the cause of action occurs before delivering the defence or before the time for delivering the defence expires. The Court observed that it is not permissible to file a counter-claim when the cause of action arises after the filing of the written statement. The Court set aside the order of the Learned Trial Judge permitting the filing of a counter-claim in contravention of the provision laid down under Rule 6A Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Name: CRR/15/2015
Judge(s): JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Parties: SMT. JHUMA GHOSH & ANR. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Summary: In this decision, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated food items. The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case and secured valid sanction for prosecution. The accused were unable to prove that the sample collection was inadequate or that the article seized was not for sale. The judgment emphasizes the importance of food safety regulations and the rigorous process required to prosecute offenders.
Case Name: CRR/1834/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Parties: UNUS ALI GAYEN & ORS. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Summary: In this High Court decision, a revision petition was filed to quash a criminal proceedings case. The case was initiated based on the same allegations as a previous police report and FIR, two years after the initial registration. The court held that the subsequent complaint case was an abuse of process of law, filed only to harass the petitioner. Thus, the court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings, preventing the misuse of legal process.
Case Name: CRR/2751/2019
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Parties: SANKAR ADDHYA @ SHANKAR ADDYA @ DAKU vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Summary: In this High Court decision, the court reviewed an order issuing summons to the petitioner under Section 319 of the CrPC. The petitioner was accused of involvement in a murder case already under trial. However, he was not initially named in the complaint or investigation. The petitioner argued that the court should have provided him an opportunity of hearing before passing such an order. The court agreed, stating it was a bounden duty of the court to give an opportunity of hearing to proposed accused persons. The order issuing summons was set aside, and the court directed the prosecution to submit a detailed report regarding the evidence of certain witnesses before hearing CRR No. 3901 of 2015.
Case Name: FMA/4/2006
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Parties: BONITA ROY vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Summary: In this High Court case, an insurance company appealed a tribunal's decision granting compensation to claimants following a road traffic accident. The claimants' predecessor died in the accident due to the driver's negligence, who was insured by the appealing company. The tribunal awarded the claimants Rs. 18,41,000. The main issue in the appeal concerned the incorrect assessment of the deceased's income, and the inappropriate calculation of the claimants' contributory negligence. After considering the evidence and arguments, the High Court found that the tribunal incorrectly held the victim responsible for the accident, as the police investigation proved that the offending vehicle's driver was at fault. The court also adjusted the income assessment, considering personal expenses and future prospects, and added general damages to the claimants' award. The final compensation amount was determined to be Rs. 29,11,504, of which the claimants had already received Rs. 18,41,000, making the balance award Rs. 10,70,504. The interest on this balance sum was to be paid by the insurance company within six weeks, and the claimants were allowed to withdraw the invested amount along with interest from the tribunal's office.
Case Name: COT/2149/2005
Judge(s): JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA.
Parties: BONITA ROY vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Summary: In a motor vehicle accident claim case, the High Court modified the award of the Tribunal. The Court found that the victim was not responsible for the accident, contradicting the Tribunal's contributory negligence conclusion. The Court determined the victim's net yearly income at Rs. 1,57,861, accounting for future prospects and general damages. The revised compensation stands at Rs. 29,11,504, with the balance award of Rs. 10,70,504 to be paid by the Insurance Company, along with 6% interest per annum, within six weeks.
Case Name: AP/745/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Parties: THE PETITIONER vs FOR THE RESPONDENT
Summary: The High Court dismissed an application for appointment of an arbitrator, finding no arbitration agreement between the parties. The e-tender's dispute resolution clause gave parties the option to resort to arbitration or not, using the word "may," which did not clearly indicate the parties' intention to arbitrate. The court emphasized that parties must clearly express their intention to arbitrate in the agreement, with no room for doubt or conditions. The absence of an arbitration agreement does not deprive the petitioner of remedy, as clause 32 of the Instructions to Bidders allows an aggrieved party to approach the jurisdictional court.
Case Name: APO/182/2023
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHIEF T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Parties: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSETS MANAGEMENT BRANCH-1, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/S. KAVITA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS
Summary: In APO No. 182 of 2023, the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Bench allowing a writ petition against a demand for repayment under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court found that the demand had been fully settled and the liability extinguished, therefore, the third notice under Section 13(2) was not maintainable. The Court clarified that the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, as in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant bank was directed to comply with the Single Bench's direction within two weeks.