Atul Paliwal S/O Satya Prakash ... vs Bank Of Baroda
2021 Latest Caselaw 9 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1/2020

                                        In

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 901/2020

                                        In

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12065/2020

Atul Paliwal S/o Satya Prakash Paliwal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
B-803,      Pashupati   Heights,        Doon        University,     Kedarpuram,
Dehradun
                                                                    ----Applicant
                                    Versus
1.        Bank Of Baroda, Branch Mahavir Nagar, Kota (Raj.)
          Through Authorized Officer.
2.        Smt Indira Paliwal, R/o D-13, Vasundhara Vihaar, Bajrang
          Nagar, Kota (Director And Guarantor)
3.        Vijay Gaur S/o Shri Ram Kishan Sharma, R/o 6-C-13,
          Mahavir Nagar -3, Kota (Guarantor)
4.        M/s Jal Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd, Through Director And
          Guarantor Ashish Paliwal S/o Subhash Chandra Palital
          Aged About 45 Years R/o D-13, Vasundhara Vihaar,
          Bajrang Nagar, Kota
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhilaksh Grover Advocate with Mr. Nitish Kumar Bagri Advocate through Video Conferencing.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Judgment / Order

04/01/2021

Applicant has filed the application seeking leave to file the

appeal.

(2 of 2)

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have

gone through the record available on the file carefully.

Respondent No.4 M/s. Jal Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd had filed

the writ petition challenging the order dated 19.02.2020 passed

by the District Magistrate, Kota whereby, application under Section

14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 filed by the Bank was allowed.

Vide order dated 02.11.2020, petition filed by the

respondent No.4 was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the

submissions made by the counsel. So far as the applicant is

concerned, he was not a party before the learned Single Judge.

During the course of arguments, it has transpired that so far

as the applicant is concerned, he has challenged the order dated

19.02.2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no

ground for grant of leave to file the appeal to the applicant is

made out.

Dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J

S.Kumawat-45

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)