THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND 2 ORS. APSARA BUILDING 1 ST FLOOR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
which the instant writ petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. This Court has also taken note of that an appeal also lies against the said order dated 20.07.2018 under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as amended. Further to that, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed…
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5820/2018 ABU HASSAN TARIQUE AHMED S/O- MD. SOHRABUDDIN AHMED VILL- MADHUPUR SALMARI PO MADHUPUR NAGAON 782003 DIST- NAGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND 2 ORS. APSARA BUILDING 1ST FLOOR B.BAROOAH ROAD ULUBARI GHY- 7 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 2:THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL APSARA BUILDING 1ST FLOOR B.BAROOAH ROAD ULUBARI GHY-7 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:STATE BANK OF INDIA NAGAON BAZAR BRANCH REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MOTIRAM BORA ROAD ELPHINSTONE CHARIALI NAGAON- 782001 DIST- NAGAON ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Kataki, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 19.01.2024 ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Recovery Officer II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati whereby the mortgaged properties which were described in the recovery certificate were attached.
Operative part
This Court has also taken note of that an appeal also lies against the said order dated 20.07.2018 under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as amended. Further to that, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in passing the impugned order dated 20.07.2018. Consequently, the question of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari does not arise. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
The interim order so passed earlier stands vacated. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: which the instant writ petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — s. 30.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 19 Jan 2024. The bench was DEVASHIS BARUAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.