Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.RAJAT FAISON BAZAR & ORS. versus S.B.B.J.,JAIPUR & ANR.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.RAJAT FAISON BAZAR & ORS. v S.B.B.J.,JAIPUR & ANR. - CW Case No. 1125 of 2005 [2005] RD-RJ 702 (29 March 2005)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1125/2005

M/s. Rajat Faison Bazar Vs. SBBJ and another.

Date : 29.3.2005

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.

Mr. Girish Sankhla, for the petitioners.

Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondents.

-----

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent Bank settled the matter and the petitioners paid cash Rs.1,57,000/- and handed over a cheque for the amount of Rs.4,68,000/-. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the possession of property was taken over by the respondent Bank by exercising the powers under

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the

Act") on 12.1.2005. It is also submitted that the respondent Bank, even after accepting the amount of

Rs.1,57,000/- which the petitioners deposited in cash and the cheque of Rs.4,68,000/-, is not releasing the property of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondent bank vehemently submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy as provided under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. It is also submitted that the petitioners submitted their proposal vide letter dated 9.2.2005 and that offer was rejected by the respondent Bank which has been conveyed to the petitioners vide letter dated 28.2.2005 and not only this, the respondent Bank has not encashed cheque of

Rs.4,68,000/- which was given to the Bank by the petitioner as post dated cheque.

In view of the above facts, the very foundation of the petitioners' claim that the matter was settled by the Bank itself is missing rather the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition by suppressing important material fact and without disclosing whether the Bank has withdrawn the payment of Rs.4,68,000/- or not ?

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(PRAKASH TATIA), J.

S.Phophaliya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.