Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35911 (CHH)

SMT. MANJU DEVI JAIN v. BANK OF INDIA

WPC/4093/2025 · 2025-08-03

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:38256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4093 of 2025 1 - Smt. Manju Devi Jain W/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Jain Aged About 67 Years R/o New Timber Market, Near Karson Estate, Fafadih, Raipur, C.G. 2 - M/s Hanuman Wires Through Its Proprietor- Smt. Manju Devi Jain, Registered Office- Quarter No. 29/d, Street-3, Sector-2, Bhilai, C.G. 492001, Factory At- 414/1, Sarora Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bank Of India Through Authorized Officer, Branch-Civic Centre Bhilai, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 2 - Assistant General Manager Bank Of India, Branch-Civic Centre Bhilai, Dist.- Durg, C.G. 3 - Ram Sagar Dwivedi S/o Shri Avadh Bihari Dwivedi Aged About 54 Years R/o 1275, Fafadih, Sai Nagar, Raipur Ganj, Raipur, Tah. And Dist.- Raipur, C.G. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate along with Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. By way of the instant petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Original Application No. 259/2020 as per (Annexure P-1) whereby the learned presiding Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.08 11:24:28 +0530 2 Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) has without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed the impugned order. 2. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable, because the matter relates to SARFEASI Act and under this Act, the matter is heard only before DRT. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before concerned DRT, if law of limitation or other laws permits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti