STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MALTI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner present. The respondent has refused to receive dasti notice given by Shri Ashok Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of India. She also refused to accept demand draft of Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, the Bank Manager has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in her account bearing No. 459087. Consequently, the respondent is deemed to have been served.

(2.) The impugned order dated 21.09.2015 runs as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only one date was given and the words 'consistently extending time' are not correct. He further submits that they had tagged the demand draft with the application. It is stated that permission was taken from Delhi office, therefore, sometime was required and the intention of the Bank was not to violate the order of the State Commission.