Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Manipur · body

2025 DAILYLAW 869 (MAN)

M/S Associate Action for Progressive Development Society(AAPD) v. Sate of Manipur and 2 Ors

WP(C)/241/2025 · 2025-09-09

A Guneshwar Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item no. 79 & 80 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL W.P. (C) No. 241 of 2025 with MC(W.P. (C)) No. 225 of 2025 M/s Associate Action for Progressive Development Society (AAPD) … Petitioner - Versus - State of Manipur and 2 Ors. … Respondents B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA ORDER 10.09.2025 [1] Mr. HS Paonam, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Sushruta Y, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Mr. S. Niranjan, learned GA for the State respondents. [2] During the course of hearing, the learned sr. counsel for the petitioner produces a copy of the letter dated 30.07.2025 issued by ARMB Head, Punjab National Bank, Guwahati addressed to the petitioner requesting to submit a fresh resolution plan for closure of the account either by way of a new OTS proposal or through full repayment of the outstanding dues and the same is taken on record. [3] The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the letter dated 30.07.2025, the petitioner has already submitted a proposal to the PNB, Guwahati and it is submitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of by directing PNB, Guwahati to complete the whole exercise to the fresh resolution plan submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time. OINAM THOIBA MEITEI Digitally signed by OINAM THOIBA MEITEI Date: 2025.09.12 10:20:52 +05'30' [4] On the other hand, Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel for the PNB submits that the bank may be given 2(two) week’s time to complete the process and however, it is submitted that the petition in the present form is not maintainable. [5] Mr. S. Niranjan, learned GA for the State respondent submits that the present matter is between the petitioner and PNB, the State respondents has no role in the present case and this Court may pass appropriate order in terms of the further development without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case. [6] In view of the above, the present writ petition is closed by giving liberty to the Punjab National Bank, Guwahati to participate the ongoing process in terms of the fresh proposal submitted by the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month and earlier interim order stands vacated. [7] With these observations, the W.P. (C) No. 241 of 2025 and MC(W.P. (C)) No. 225 of 2025 are disposed of. JUDGE Thoiba