Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/74/2026 of SANCHITA BHAKAT Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 25 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 74 of 2026 Sanchita Bhakat, aged about 51 years, daughter of Shri Chanchal Kumar Bhakat, resident of Village- PNB colony, Holding no.-2, Prabhat Nagar, P.O.+P.S.- Sonari, Dist. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ….......
2026:JHHC:28907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 74 of 2026
Sanchita Bhakat, aged about 51 years, daughter of Shri Chanchal Kumar Bhakat, resident of Village- PNB colony, Holding no.-2, Prabhat Nagar, P.O.+P.S.- Sonari, Dist. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
…....... Petitioner(s)
Vrs.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Saurabh Pathak, the Branch Manager S/o not known to the petitioner Indian Bank ( Erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Sakchi Branch, 41, Ellora Complex, Thakur Bari Road, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S.: Sakchi, Jamshedpur(Jharkhand) 831001.
........ Opposite Party(s)
…....
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shadab bin haque, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C to Sr. S.C.-II For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
08/25.09.2026 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the State that one time settlement (OTS) scheme offered by the petitioner to the Bank has been rejected by the opposite party-Bank vide its letter dated 22.11.2023, which has been duly communicated to the petitioner on 02.12.2023. The said rejection order dated 22.11.2023 is annexed as Annexure-A to the show cause filed by the opposite party- Bank.
2. It appears that the rejection of the offer made by the petitioner for one time settlement is a fresh cause of action, which cannot be entertained in the present contempt proceeding.
3. The present contempt proceeding is dropped and accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 25 .09.2026 A. Mohanty
Uploaded ____/____/2026