BALBIR SINGH Vs. SUKRITI LIKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a writ petition on 23.4.2005 challenging the notice dated 5.4.2005. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner undertook to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within one week and the balance amount as expeditiously as possible before the date fixed in the writ petition. Such order was passed on April 26, 2005 while issuing notice of motion for 4.8.2005.

(2.) THE said writ petition was finally decided on 15.12.2005 wherein the petitioner was given liberty to avail of the statutory remedy as prescribed in Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). It was further ordered that if the petitioner has complied with the terms of the interim order passed in the petition, the same shall continue till the prayer for interim relief is considered and decided by the learned Tribunal.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that out of more than Rs. 6 lacs on the amount due, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2 lacs on 4.5.2005 i.e. beyond the period of one week granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount and still further the petitioner has not deposited any amount over and above Rs. 2 lacs before the date fixed or as a matter of fact till today. Even an appeal was filed under Section 17 of the Act on 10.2.2006, although in terms of the order passed by this Court, the appeal could be filed on or before 31.1.2006. Therefore, it is contended that there is no effective interim order in favour of the petitioner in respect of which the petitioner can be permitted to raise any grievance.