TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt finds that as the said Form had been filed on 27th February, 2020, the petitioner had sufficient time before the onset of the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic to rectify its mistake. Allegedly, the same was done on 30th June, 2021 [date of the closure of the Scheme] i.e. much beyond the period of thirty days. The petitioner had also not deposited the balance amount till 30th June, 2021. Writ petition dismissed. - W.P.(C) 12135/2021 & C.M.Nos.37865-37866/2021 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through : Mr. Pawan Arora with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai, Advocates. Respondents Through : Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Sr. Standing counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner states that the petitioner had filed the Application SVLDRS-1 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. He however states that due to a clerical error the petitioner had left the pre- deposit column blank in the declaration and had not filled the amount of pre-deposit of ₹ 1,38,91,813/- in the Declaration Form. He states that the petitioner s application seeking rectification of the declaration was rejected by the respondent without providing an opportunity of being heard to petitioner and without rectifying the SVLDRS 3 statement issued by the respondent No.2 by reducing the pre- deposited amount of ₹ 1,38,91,813/- from the amount payable of ₹ 1,49,11,634/-. He submits that Section 126(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had sufficient time before the onset of the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic to rectify its mistake. Allegedly, the same was done on 30th June, 2021 [date of the closure of the Scheme] i.e. much beyond the period of thirty days. 7. The petitioner had also not deposited the balance amount of ₹ 10,19,821/- till 30th June, 2021. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had given instructions to its bankers on 30th June, 2021 to credit the balance amount of ₹ 10,19,821/- with the respondents, but the said instruction was not carried out by the bank as well as Reserve Bank of India and, thus, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. 8. Since the bank is not a party to the present proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
