Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39213 (CHH)

SMT. AMISHA PUGALIA v. BANK OF INDIA

WPC/4413/2025 · 2025-08-18

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 2 2025:CGHC:41707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4413 of 2025 1 - Smt. Amisha Pugalia D/o Late Shri Chandan Mal Jain, Aged About 40 Years R/o C-402, Karson Estate, Near Patidhar Bhawan, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.), 492001 2 - M/s Harsh Industries, Through Its Proprietor- Smt. Amisha Pugalia, R/o C- 402, Karson Estate, Near Patidhar Bhawan, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.), 492001 ... Petitioners versus 1 - Bank of India Through Authorized Officer, Branch - Devendra Nagar, Raipur Branch Address - Shop No. 81-83, Shoppers Paradise Surana Complex, Near City Center Mall, Pandri, Raipur Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Assistant General Manager, Bank Of India, Branch - Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Mrs. Ashu Singh, D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, R/o - H No. 8/330, Behind Lalwani Cilnic, Gali No. 01, Ambedkar Nagar, Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. By way of the instant petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.20 10:44:15 +0530 2 / 2 Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Original Application No. 382/2021 as per (Annexure P-1) whereby the learned presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) has without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.1 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/DRAT, if law of limitation or other laws permits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu