Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10766 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra,Parvez Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anay Kumar Srivastava,Ashish Agrawal,Anay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
This writ petition has been filed by one Mahesh Kumar Verma claiming that the disputed property had been transferred to him, which the respondent nos. 5 to 6 are now disputing and is subject matter of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the possession whereof was sought to be taken by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of Act, 2002. The said order dated 9.11.2017 has been challenged by the borrower in Writ Petition No.11913 of 2018 that is come up on 7th May, 2018 as per orders passed today.
So far as the present writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court and prays for quashing of the same possession notice, but certain developments have taken place in this matter which were noted by this Court in earlier orders passed. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner in order to seek protection of his interest had filed securitization application no.78 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. When this matter was heard along with other writ petition refereed to herein above, the petitioner contended that he was surprised that such an application has been filed on his behalf before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and on enquiry, it was further informed that said proceeding had been initiated by an impostor with regard to which we had called upon the presiding officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal to submit his report. The presiding officer submitted a report to the effect that on 2nd April, 2018 when the said application was taken up, the petitioner appeared in person and has stated that he has not filed any such application where upon he was called upon to move an application to bring this fact on record. It is further stated in the report submitted by the presiding officer that no such application had been filed as a result whereof on the basis of statement made by learned counsel who had filed the said application, the same was dismissed as not pressed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is moving a proper application for recalling of the said order inasmuch as it deserves to be clarified that as the petitioner had not filed the application, any order passed not pressing the same should not be binding upon him.
We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a proper application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass appropriate orders. If any such application is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal shall proceed to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the facts that have been stated in the report of the presiding officer submitted before this Court dated 7th April, 2018.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 Ajeet