ASHISH MITTAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.2174/2016 are narrated hereunder.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2016 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Ujjain in case No.107/B/121/15-16.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that he is a resident of Ujjain and is neither a borrower, nor a guarantor. He has further stated that he has never availed any financial assistance from Bank of Baroda. The petitioner has further stated that one Suresh Kumawat was the owner of the property i.e. house No.B-2/18, MIG, situated at Vasant Vihar, Scheme-1, Nanakheda and the property was leased out by Suresh Kumawat vide lease deed dated 02.05.2014 (Annexure P/1).