The Tribunal allowed the applicant's request to withdraw the alternate appeal after the underlying Section 13(4) notice was withdrawn, disposing of the SA and all pending IAs.
Request to withdraw the SA allowed; SA stands disposed of as withdrawn; all pending IAs also stood disposed off.
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. 39
Case No.SA/427/2026
RAJEEV BHANDARI Vs JODHPUR DEVELOPENT AUTHORITY
Date: 17.06.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode: Present:
Shri Shubham Gupta, Counsel for the applicant
Shri R P Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondent
In this matter, counsel for the respondent submits that the name of Respondent is Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited in the pleadings itself, but somehow the name of Respondent is reflecting in the cause list as Jodhpur Development Authority, so Registry is directed to correct the name of Respondent.
Counsel for the respondent further submits that this SA is filed challenging the notice under Section 13(4) which has already been withdrawn.
Counsel for the applicant submits that as the notice under Section 13(4) has been withdrawn, so he wants to withdraw this SA and will take appropriate actions as and when required.
Request to withdraw the SA is allowed. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of as withdrawn, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
cm
RAJEEV BHANDARI
JAIPUR DEVELOPENT AUTHORITY
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
