Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dismissed Multi-Appeal No. 262/2022 (OA No. 404/2019). Upheld that a third-party applicant cannot challenge an order under Rule 11 before the Recovery Officer and should instead file an objection within 30 days. MA disposed off as dismissed.
Multi-Appeal (MA) disposed off as dismissed. Liberty to file objection within 30 days.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 34
Case No. MA/262/2022 IN OA/404/2019 UCO BANK Vs RAM GOPAL SOKHAL
Date: 03.04.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present:
Shri Devendra Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri C P Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, Counsel for the applicant, i.e. Anita Khedia submits that they are purchaser of the property which is subject matter of the OA. If they are third party purchaser of the property, then they can very well challenge the objection under Rule 11 before the Recovery Officer for getting their right decided.
Accordingly, MA stands disposed off as dismissed. If the applicant wishes to file objection, they can do so within 30 days time from today.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party purchaser can challenge the objection under Rule 11 before the Recovery Officer
Whether an objection is maintainable under Rule 11 before the Recovery Officer by a third party purchaser
UCo BANK
RAM GOPAL SOKHAL
Anita Khedia
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
