The court held the Special Application was filed prematurely as mandatory possession notice under Rule (b) of the Sartaesi Act had not been served. The applicant was permitted to withdraw the matter.
Permission granted to withdraw the Special Application with liberty to file a fresh one in the future.
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.
PAGE No
CONTD. ORDER-SHEET
CASE No
| OATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| sA76123 15103123 |
ShriAmitSthapak,AdvfbrtheApplicants ShriAdamyaBajpai,Adv withAjeetVerma lau,officeroftheRespondent-Bank |
|
| L Onmatterbeing takenRespondent Counseltakenanobjectionthatthis SAis not rraintainablesincethis SAisfiledpremature rvithout actiontakenu/sl3(4)ol-thesarlaesi actor sectionl4ofthesaltttcsiact. 2.On theotherhandApplicantCounselby invitingattentiononAnn.A-1submitsthat sincetheRespondent-Bankhadissued noticc lbrpossessioninlbnuol'Vlol'Rulc(t3)ofthc sart-aesiactthereforethis SAismaintainable' 3.Respondent Cor:nselby invitingattention onAnn.R-ltaggedwithreplysirbmits tliat alterissuingpossessiotl t.toticeAun.A-1the Applicantshavesubn-rittedarlapplication beloretheBankandhavedeposited I{s.50,000/-(RupeesIili},'t'hotrsandorrly)irr theirloanaccountaspartpa!mcllttltclelorc Respondent-BankhasnotproceededfLrrlher to publish noticeor takefultheractiotl. |
||
| 4.Sinceas porcontelttionofthe Respondent-Bankplocecdingu/sl3(4) ofthe salf'aesiactbyoompletingpastingof possessionnoticehadnotbecncomplied thelcfbreinlactnocauscol'actiotlhasbeclt arisestolrlcthisSA. 5.Atthispointol-timeApplicantCounsel praysforwithdrawalofthis SArvithlibcrtyto frleal'r'eshinI'uturervhenevet'occasionarises. |
CONTD. ORDER.SHEET
PAGE No
CASE No.
| DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER | REMARX |
|---|---|---|
| 6.Applicantsideispermittedtowithdraw this SAwithlibertYasPraYed' |
||
| 7.ThisSA premature. IS beingdisPosedofas |
||
| 8 Recordbeconsignedtothe recordroom' (Ram iwasPatel) Presiding. Officer D.R.T,JabalPur (M.P&c.G) |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Application is maintainable before action under Section 13(4) of the Sartaesi Act was taken.
Whether the deposit of ₹50,000 by the applicants before the bank negates the premature filing of the SA.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Amit Sthapak
Respondent-Bank
Ramaswamy Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
