Special Application was dismissed as the bank received no bid post-sale notice, rendering the interim relief application and the challenge to the sale order infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN TIIE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
Present: A. H. Khan, PresidingOfficer
Date of order 19.9.2022
In
S.A. No. 604 of2022
S1. No. 99
Present:-
Mr. K. Dixit Ld. Counsel for theaPPlicant Ld. Counsel forthe resP. bank Mr. N.K. TriPathi
Counsel for therespondentbank stated that in pursuance to the impugned salenotice, the bankhas not received any bid'
In view of thesubmission of the counsel for the bank, the interim relief application regardingsale has rendered infructuous.
Counsel forthe applicant stated that in the S.A. the applicant had only challenged thesale and there is no other relief prayed in the S'A'
Heard the counselfor the partiesand gone through the record'The applicant hadonly challenged the impugnedsale and in pursuanceto the sale notice the bankhas not received any bid, thus there is nothingremaif\ot adjudication.Accordinglythe S.A. is disposed of finally. ,--
,--
Let the file beconsignedto record.
,/ (. n. R[u";
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Special Application challenging the sale order remains substantive when no bids were received.
Applicant
ResP. bank
A. H. Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
