Sunil kr. Arora and Anr. v. Bank of Baroda and 2 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Court maintained status quo on the property in question, pending an appeal against a recovery officer's notice. Grant of interim injunction due to alleged forcible possession by respondent-bank, requiring maintenance of status quo until next date.
What did the court decide?
Maintenance of status quo on the property; appendix of parties to serve notices on each other.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 283/2023 Date: 16.03.2023
Sunil Kumar Arora Vs. Bank of Baroda
Present: Shri Udai Chandani, counsel for the appellant, Shri Abhishek Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri S. K. Singh, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Learned counsel for the appellant deposits two demand drafts being D.D. No. 473772 dated 10.03.2023 for Rs. 7.00 lacs and D.D. No. 314771 dated 10.03.2023 for Rs. 4.50 lacs, total Rs. 11.50 lacs towards pre-deposit.
The aforesaid amount deposited by the appellant be kept in the form of FDR in Nationalized Bank for a period of one year in auto renewal scheme.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that he has not been served with the copy of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he shall serve the same upon the counsel for the respondent-Bank during course of the day.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the physical possession was being forcibly taken by the respondent, therefore, he had filed a writ petition no. 6383/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 has passed an interim order, by which the notice issued by the Recovery Officer dated 17.01.2023 was kept in abeyance for three days.
Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the respondent-bank has approached the appellant for taking physical possession of the property in question along with police force, therefore, some interim protection may be granted.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether interim protection is warranted to maintain status quo regarding physical possession of the property during the appeal.
Whether the appeal is to be dismissed due to lack of service by the respondent-bank.
Whether the notice by Recovery Officer is to be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the writ petition.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sunil Kumar Arora
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
14 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court