SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 417

RAJESH SHANKAR
Prashant Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kanhaiya Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Prasad.
For the Respondent: Mr. D.K. Bharti.

ORDER :

1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, is ignored for the present.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 18th January, 2021 issued by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in Recovery Proceeding no. 250 of 2017, arising out of O.A. Case No. 673 of 2016, for settling a sale proclamation with regard to immovable property as mentioned therein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his brother Vivek Kumar Singh-husband of the respondent no. 4 is co-purchaser of the property. It is also submitted that, in fact, the respondent no. 4 being the owner of proprietorship firm namely M/s. Devi Concern was the borrower of loan from Punjab National Bank, Lohardaga Branch, Lohardaga and the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the same. He was also not a party in O.A. Case No. 673 of 2016 filed by the bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. Presently, the premises in question has been let out to a third party, who is running a school over the same. It is, thus, submitted that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top