The Patna High Court dismissed a writ application challenging a Debts Recovery Tribunal order. The court held that the impugned order was passed with the consent of the parties, as the auction purchaser agreed to receive the sale proceeds with interest, leaving no reason for judicial interference.
The writ application is dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18998 of 2017
======================================================
Pushpa Devi Wife of Sri Surendra Kumar Shawarn Resident of Manik Kunwar Niwas, Sati Asthan, Masaurhi, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohit Raj, Advocate For the Resp. No. 8 : Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this court as to why on the face of the finding of the Tribunal that it is the petitioner who had agreed to receive the amount with interest and cost, this writ application be entertained. In fact the finding of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed in S.A. no. 41 of 2013 reads as under:
“Ld. Counsel of the auction purchaser submits that he is ready to receive the amount with interest & cost as per order of this Tribunal, accordingly, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18998 of 2017(2) dt.26-08-2019 2/2
Bank has handed over DD No. 445343 of Rs. 28,35,000/0 (Rs. 27,00,000/- towards the auction money + Rs. 1,35,000/- as interest and cost) to the ld. Counsel of auction purchaser. Ld. Counsel of the parties further submits that they don’t want to proceed further in this SA.”
In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed with consent of the parties.
Learned counsel for the Bank is present. This Writ Application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Rajeev/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ application challenging a tribunal order passed with the consent of the parties where the petitioner failed to satisfy the court that the order should be interfered with on
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pushpa Devi
The Punjab National Bank
The Branch Manager, The Punjab National Bank
The Authorised officer, Punjab National Bank
The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
