M/S R N BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. TH. SURAJ MAHENDRU AND OTHERS v. UT OF J AND K TH. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU AND OTHERS
WP(C)/2091/2024 · 2025-05-26
Shahzad Azeem, Sindhu Sharma
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4244 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4244 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No. 2091/2024 CM No. 5081/2024 CM No. 5526/2024 CAV No. 1109/2024
M/s R N BuildTech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
..... Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- None.
Vs
U.T. of J&K and Ors. .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Akash Gupta, Advocate for R-2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
ORDER 26.05.2025
01. Petitioners have challenged Order No. DCJ/SARFAESI/2023-24/91-94 dated 06.10.2023 issued under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
2002.
02. This Court vide order dated 02.09.2024 had directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners subject to depositing of Rs. 25 lakhs by the petitioners before the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks.
03. It appears that the amount in terms of order dated 02.09.2024 was not deposited. Accordingly, on 17.12.2024, Mr. Muneesh Sharma, learned counsel Sr. No. 22
2 | P a g e WP(C) No. 2091/2024
appearing for the petitioners submitted that he has not received any instructions from the petitioners and, as such, he prayed for and was relieved.
04. Since the petitioners have not deposited Rs. 25.00 lakhs in terms of order dated 02.09.2024, therefore, the interim order was vacated by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 and the Bank was left free to recover its amount by adopting due process of law.
05. Notice was issued to the petitioners vide order dated 17.12.2024 to appear either in person or through an authorized attorney/representative on the next date of hearing.
06. Today, when the matter was listed, neither the petitioners have come present nor any representative has appeared on their behalf. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the instant petition. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.
07. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
( SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE
JUDGE
JAMMU 26.05.2025 Mihul
Mihul Singh 2025.05.26 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document