Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LALIT KUMAR AGRAWAL versus RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lalit Kumar Agrawal v. Recovery Officer Debt Recovery & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 35598 of 2002 [2002] RD-AH 29 (8 September 2002)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                              Court no. 1

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 35598 of 2002

Lalit Kumar Agrawal . . .  Vs.  . . .  Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery                Tribunal-III  Rajendra Place, New      Delhi &  others.

             ---

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

Indian Overseas Bank ( the Bank ) filed  suit no. 549 of 1994 at Delhi for recovery of Rs.46,18,309/- along with interest and cost. During pendency of the suit Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT) came into existence and the suit was transferred to the DRT, New Delhi. This suit was decreed on 22.4.1997. The Bank filed an application for execution of the decree. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside  order dated 22.4.1997 on  the ground that this is exparte. This application was rejected on 26.11.1998. Thereafter  the Recovery Officer also passed an order  on 4.2.1999 directing the petitioner to file an affidavit  for his assets. The petitioner did not appear and thereafter  the Recovery Officer passed an order dated 26.4.1999  directing the petitioner to show cause as to why  arrest warrant be not issued  against him. The petitioner along with his wife  filed  writ petition no. 1578 of 1999 before Delhi High Court on 4.5.1999 and in this writ petition the petitioner obtained interim order  staying arrest on payment of certain amount. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed on 20.12.1999. After dismissal of the writ petition certain proceedings went on and thereafter Recovery Officer  passed an order dated 8.7.2002  and notice was issued to the petitioner directing him  to furnish copies of income tax returns of the last five years,  bank account details  etc. and also to show cause why he should not be arrested. Thereafter the order dated 17.7.2002 was passed for issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioner, hence, the present writ petition.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel  and Sri M.P. Sarraf for the respondents.

The suit for recovery  was  transferred  to DRT New Delhi and  the DRT decreed it on 22.4.1997. Thereafter  petitioner's application to recall this order was dismissed on 26.11.1998 and the petitioner's writ petition filed against these two orders had  been dismissed  by Delhi High Court on 20.12.1999. The order dated 22.4.1997  as well as the order of Delhi High Court dated 20.12.1999 have become final.

The result is that the  petitioner  is liable to pay the amount mentioned in the decree  granted by the DRT, New Delhi. The Recovery Officer has merely passed order for recovery of the amount. There is no illegality in the same. Earlier similar orders were passed on 4.2.1999 and 26.4.1999 and the petitioner had obtained interim order in the writ petition no. 1578 of 1999 filed before Delhi High Court. After dismissal of the writ petition the Recovery Officer again  passed similar orders which have been stayed in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not given the details of the proceedings taken by him before Delhi High Court and has concealed                                                                                                                                                                          material facts. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

This writ petition is dismissed with costs.

Dated:8.9.2005

RPP.


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.