ABHINAV TANDON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the resumption proceedings. Additionally, the order passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority have also been challenged. The resumption has been ordered against the petitioner on account of non-payment of the outstanding dues.

(2.) On February 6, 2006, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had made a statement before this Court that the petitioner was ready to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs which was due and payable by the petitioner with regard to the property in question. On March 20, 2006 this Court had noticed that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Registry of this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- would completely cover all the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner and if the aforesaid amount is ordered to be adjusted towards the outstanding dues nothing more is payable.

(3.) Sh. Arun Walia, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, states that in spite of the repeated opportunities granted to the petitioner, the petitioner had failed to deposit the outstanding dues. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2004(2) SCC Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., we are satisfied that once the petitioner has shown his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs which according to the petitioner is full and final payment of the outstanding dues, resumption order passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.