NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
Santosh Kumar Sah – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
1. Heard the parties.
2. The private respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit. A rejoinder thereto has been filed by the petitioner. The Bank Certificate holder is present.
3. The present writ application was filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed in appeal by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. He has set aside the proclamation of sale and consequently the sale as made by the Recovery Officer, D.R.T., Bihar, Patna, in respect of the properties which the petitioner had purchased. The grievance of the petitioner is that after reading the sale proclamation in respect of the properties in question he filed his tender before the Recovery Officer, D.R.T. He being the only bidder for the property his bid was accepted and the property was sold for Rs. 42,000/-. The respondent to whom the property belonged objected to an protested. The same was rejected by the Recovery Officer and the sale was confirmed. Against this the respondent filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, D.R.T. as provided under the Act and rules framed thereunder. In the said appeal the petitioner was not made a party as the statutory format for filing the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.