Petitioner challenged a Debt Recovery Tribunal demand notice via writ petition. Court found no reason to interfere as the underlying order was not challenged and directed petitioner to approach DRT for grievance redress once.
Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal for redress.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010101472022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3565/2022
RAJKUMAR SAH
S/O. SRI BHARAT SAH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S MAA SHANTI RICE MILL, R/O. RED CROSS ROAD, KHALIMARI, P.O. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, PIN-786001, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, INDIA.
2:THE RECOVERY OFFICER NO.1 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING DIVISION) SUWARNA BHAWAN HOUSE NO.12 NEW TOWN PATH G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 ASSAM.
3:THE CHIEF MANAGER CUM AUTHORISED OFFICER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE AT NEHRU PARK ROAD JORHAT P.O. AND DIST. JORHAT ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P HAZARIKA
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 10.08.2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Heard Mr. R.P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3/Bank.
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under:-
“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Hon’ble may graciously be pleased to admit this petition and may direct the concerning respondent to show cause why the impugned Demand Notice dated 23.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.-2 may not be set aside and quash or may pass any appropriate order/orders or any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the Light of justice.
-AND-
In the interim, Hon’ble may kindly stay the operation of the impugned Demand Notice dated 23.11.2021 issued by the respondent no.-2 or may pass any appropriate order/orders as this hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the Ends Of Justice.”
What is challenged before this Court is a Demand Notice dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati pursuant to a Recovery Certificate issued by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal with an order dated 19.01.2021 in Case No.182/2019. There is nothing on record to show that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 19.01.2021 is challenged by the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/3
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Demand Notice dated 23.11.2021. However, it is provided that it would be open for the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and or any other forum to redress his grievance.
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside or quash the Demand Notice issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Rajkumar Sah
The Union of India
Soumitra Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
