Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/1843/2013 of M/s Jindutt Poha Udyog And Ors. Vs Collector District Magistrate And Anr. on 20 December 2013
. V , Wmwmw¢$ammmwmwwmwmwwwwmshWM“ (& IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No, \%>1'*i3 / 201 3 gmgf@ Eanah PETITIONERS : 1. M/sJindutt Poha Udy9g through Proprietor Ajay Kumar Bafna, S/o Gautamchemd Bafna, aged about 39 yearS, M/s Parsvnath Food
\;‘.V,Wmwmw¢$ammmwmwwmwmwwwwmshWM“
gmgf@ Eanah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (C) No,\%>1'*i3/ 201[3]
PETITIONERS
:1.M/sJindutt Poha Udy9gthroughProprietorAjayKumarBafna,S/oGautamchemdBafna,aged about 39 yearS,throughProprietorAjayKumarBafna,S/oGautamchemdBafna,aged about 39 yearS, /
M/s Parsvnath Food ProcessorthroughPartnerAjayKumarBafna,S/o Gautamchand Bafna, aged about39 years,throughPartnerAjayKumarBafna,S/o Gautamchand Bafna, aged about39 years,
3.AbhishekBafna,S/oGautamchandBafna, aged around 33 yearsBafna, aged around 33 years
14.SarladeviBafnaWifeofAjayKumarBafna, aged about37yearsBafna, aged about37years A11theaboveR/oCollegeRo,adMahasamund,PS.[~]Mahasamund,Tahsil 82; District— Mahasamund(C.G.)Mahasamund,PS.[~]Mahasamund,Tahsil 82; District— Mahasamund(C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPODENTS
“M[W.”][ Mr]
1. Collector (Distrtic Magi)straicDistct'ri Mahasamund (C.G.)Distct'ri Mahasamund (C.G.)
I
2. State Bank of India,Branch—Mahasamun,dtghhrou—-ChiefManager,Distrt—icMsamundah (C.G.)Branch—Mahasamun,dtghhrou—-ChiefManager,Distrt—icMsamundah (C.G.)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THECONSTITUTIONOF INDIA
HIGH COURT\\ OF CHHATTISGARH OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
\\ OF CHHATTISGARH OF CHHATTISGARH
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker W.P. (Ci No. 1843/2013
PETITIONERS
Page 1 of 3
M/S Jindutt Poha
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
Collector,
Mahasamund
Shri Shashank Thakur counsel for theShrl Valbhav Goverdhan petitioners. PLfor the respondent/State.Shrl B.D‘ Guru counsel for respondent No.2.
o R D E R(20.12.2013)
After issuance of notice to the petitioners under Section 13
(2) [of][ The]Seouritization and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002(for[short][ ‘the]Act of2002”), they filed an appeal before the DRT Jabalpur which is stillpending. According to the petitioners,at subsequent” stage theyalso filed stay application before the DRT.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that order (Annexure P- petitioners submits that order (Annexure P-1)hasbeenpassedbytheCollectorforattachmentpassedbytheCollectorforattachmentofthepetitioners' property on 21.10.2013 and at any time Tehsildar maypetitioners' property on 21.10.2013 and at any time Tehsildar mayattachtheproperty.Hesubmitsthatinnormalcoursethepetitioners would have filed application before DRT Jabalpur butas presently no officer is posted at Jabalpur, petitioners have noproperty.Hesubmitsthatinnormalcoursethepetitioners would have filed application before DRT Jabalpur butas presently no officer is posted at Jabalpur, petitioners have nooptionbuttofilepresentwritpetitionbeforethisCourt.He'submits that some alternative arrangement has been made forpresentwritpetitionbeforethisCourt.He'submits that some alternative arrangement has been made for Jabalpur DRT and asperhisinformationtheBench wouldbeavailablefrom3.1.2014to10.1.2014.Hesubmitsthatthepetitioners[are][ making][ sincere][ efforts][ to]get[the][ matter][ heard][ on]interimrelief buttili their caseis taken up before DRT, Tehsiidarmay be directed not to proceed further.
Page 2 of 3
3. Submission made onbehalf of thepetitioners,is opposedby counseifor respondentNo.2.He submits that Collector haspassed[the][ order][ dated][ 21.10.2013][ and]if the petitioners were soaggrievedbytheaforesaidorder,theycouldhavefiledappropriate applicationbefore the DRT onearlier occasion.Hesubmitsthat‘Tehsildarcannotberestrainedfrompassingtheattachmentorderasthepetitionershavefailedtopaytherequisite amount to the Bank.
4. Consideringthe facts andcircumstances of the case andthat the caseof thepetitionersis already before the DRT,thisCourtisnotinclinedtoentertainthispetition,ltisaccordinglydismissed.
5. lfthepetitionerssodesire,theymayapproachthecompetent authority seeking some time[to]get some[ order][ from]DRT‘It would be for the authorities to[consider][ as][ to][ whether][ any]time is to be granted to the petitioners[or][ not.]
6. Nothinghas been commentedby thisCourt onmeritsordemerits of the case.
”fSdl—Pritinker[Diwaker]Judge
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…