M/S DREAM LAND BUILDERS v. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED AND ANR.
Court: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir judgment dated 2025-04-28. M/S DREAM LAND BUILDERS v. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED AND ANR. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
Serial No. 64 Regular cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 13/2025 M/s Dream Land Builders ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - None V/s Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Anr. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE (ORDER) 28. 04. 2025 Amount of Rs. 1. 50 Crores, directed to be deposited vide order dated 02. 02. 2025, has not been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Bank. This is so stated by learned counsel for the respondents. As a matter of fact, an application was moved by the petitioner to seek extension of time to comply with the order dated 02. 02. 2025, which was taken up for consideration by this Bench on 05. 03. 2025. During the course of consideration of the aforesaid application, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that petitioner would be depositing Rs. 80.
00 lacs, which amount petitioner had arranged. On the basis of statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was permitted to deposit Rs. 80. 00 lacs with a further direction to deposit remaining amount by the next date of hearing. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Mr. Shafqat Nazir, learned counsel for the respondents submits that aforesaid Rs. 80. 00 lacs were not deposited by the petitioner. Today, when the case was called, nobody caused appearance on behalf of petitioner. It seems that the petitioner, having failed to comply with order passed by this Court and also to fulfil commitment made on 05. 03. 2025 before this Court, has decided not to contest the case. In view of aforesaid, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim direction, passed on 02. 02. 2025 and 05. 03. 2025 are vacated. Respondents are free to recover its amount in accordance with law.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 28. 04. 2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.