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

SUNIL BENIWAL
Rajeev Bhandari – Appellant
Versus
Jodhpur Development Authority – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Patel and Ms. Nandipna Gehlot, Advocates

ORDER

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice/order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure-3) and has also sought quashment of all further proceedings initiated pursuant to the said notice. The petitioner has further prayed that the flat in question may not be put to auction and that any recovery sought to be made be effected from the original borrower.

2. The facts, in brief, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner purchased Flat No. C-97(A) situated at Parshvanath City, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the purchased flat”) on 21.08.2018. The said flat was constructed by the developer on a plot, the sub-division whereof was approved by the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) on 30.08.2017. Since the purchase of the said flat, the petitioner has been residing therein along with his family.

2.1 On 24.09.2025 (Annexure-3), a notice came to be issued to the petitioner under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”) by respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner also lodged an FIR against th

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