RATAN SINGH CHOWDHARY Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have elaborately heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 8. We have also perused the notice of demand issued by the first respondent- Debts Recovery Officer as against the petitioner. Various contentions have been raised in the writ petition by the petitioner challenging the demand notice issued by the first respondent-Debts Recovery Officer.

(2.) After making submissions for some considerable length of time, Sri Milind G Gokhale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made an alternative submission that in case the submissions made by him are not acceptable to the Court, leave may be granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal.

(3.) The short question that falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the impugned notice of demand issued by the first respondent-Debts Recovery Officer suffers from any jurisdictional errors so as to be interdicted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?