Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/1023/2026 of ANJANI KUMAR SINGH Vs RAJENDRA KUMAR SABOO, CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE UCO BANK on 18 September 2026
Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1023 of 2026 ------ Anjani Kumar Singh, S/o Vijay Singh, Resident of H.No.18, Road No.1, Mithila Colony, Baridih Basti, PO & PS-Baridih, Town- Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … …
2026:JHHC:28292
Page | 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1023 of 2026
------
Anjani Kumar Singh, S/o Vijay Singh, Resident of H.No.18, Road No.1, Mithila Colony, Baridih Basti, PO & PS-Baridih, Town- Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
… … Petitioner(s)
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Rajendra Kumar Saboo, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the UCO Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its office at 10 BTM Sarani, 5th Floor, PO-Kolkata, GPO, PS-Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata.
2. Saurabh Shrivastava, General Manager, UCO Bank, Local Head Office, having office at Rajendra Jawan Bhawan cum Sainik Bazar, Main Road, PO-Sainik Market, PS-Lower Bazaar, Ranchi.
3. Rajnees Kumar Sinjgh, the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Mango Branch, Iqbal Chambers, Purulia Highway, PO & PS- Mango, Jamshedpur.
… … Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan, Adv.
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Opp. Party(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv.
M/s V. Kaushik, Adv.
------ 02/ 18th September, 2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this contempt application alleging violation of order dated 13.07.2026 in W.P.(C) No.2646 of 2025.
3. It was the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition that the Circle Officer was not mutating the land.
4. This Court held that the mortgaged asset was purchased by the petitioner and the land which has been purchased is a vacant land which is in possession of the bank. It was also noted that there was no boundary constructed.
5. Considering all these aspects, this Court directed the petitioner to take possession over the land in question as per the sale certificate issued by the bank in favour of the petitioner and it was further held that once the petitioner takes possession of the same, he will apply for a fresh mutation before the concerned Circle Officer, who will mutate the land in favour of the petitioner.
6. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that when they have gone to take possession of the land in question, some private
2026:JHHC:28292
Page | 2
persons are objecting. Thus, the petitioner prays to initiate a contempt proceeding.
7. In the writ petition, it was only the bank who were the respondents. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the bank is obstructing possession of the petitioner rather it is an admitted case of the petitioner that some residents of nearby places or some outsider is objecting.
8. Thus, no contempt is made out. Accordingly, this contempt application is dropped.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 18th September, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2
Uploaded on 19 /09/2026