Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 123584 (ALL)

MANOJ SARDANA AND ANOTHER v. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LKO. THRU. PRESIDING OFFICER/CHAIRMAN AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/1534/2025 · 2025-02-17

Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10078-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1534 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manoj Sardana And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer/Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Pratap Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 31.1.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow in S.A. No. 47 of 2025. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter was heard through video-conferencing, as the Presiding Officer hears the matter from Patna. He further submits that there was some communication gap and ultimately when the order was received, it was found that the petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the notice amount within 3 days. The learned counsel also wanted to address the court on merits, however, we are of the opinion that if aggrieved, the petitioner can move an application for modification of the order, if otherwise permissible, and if such an application is filed within 3 days, it will be heard on the next date fixed, i.e. 20.2.2025. If not possible for any reason, then within one week thereafter. With the above observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 17.2.2025 A.Nigam Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench