This writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the Supreme Court had already disposed of the underlying property dispute and ordered the petitioner to vacant the premises within three months.
Petition dismissed as 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 THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4274 of 2012
Pawan Kumar Poddar ..... … Petitioner Versus Bank of India, Ranchi Main Branch, Main Road, Ranchi & Ors. ..... … Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate. : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate. For the Resp. No. 3 : Ms Amrita Sinha, Advocate.
19/ 06.10.2023 Ms Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the property in question was purchased by the respondent No. 3 in auction sale by the Bank, which was challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, which was decided in favour of respondent No. 3, holding that the auction sale was in accordance with law. She submits that in the appeal also, the petitioner lost and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. She further submits that in view of the impugned order, interest of the petitioner has been denied by the tribunal and in the meantime, the matter was travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to the issue of eviction of the shop in question, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 07.08.2023 dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 22709 of 2019, however, on the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permit the petitioner to vacate the subject premises within a period of three months with effect from 07.08.2023 and for this purpose, the petitioner must file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of two weeks from that date. It is further observed that if such an affidavit is not filed within the time frame stipulated, the respondents shall be at liberty to enforce the order as per the law. The said order of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been brought on record by way of Annexure-R-3/C of the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner has given the undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is misleading one.
-2-
disposal of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the dispute in question with regard to property is set at rest and the direction is already there to vacate the property in question.
Amitesh/-
Pawan Kumar Poddar
Bank of India, Ranchi Main Branch, Main Road, Ranchi & Ors.
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court