ASHOK KUMAR MEHTA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated 06.11.2019, which has been filed by the private respondent No.3.

(2.) Mr. Kawadia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 at the outset invited Court's attention towards the order dated 24.10.2019, passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.18030/2019 (Ashok Kumar Mehta v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.) and pointed out that petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition laying challenge to the auction proceedings and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal raising numerous grievances, including that the petitioner has deposited substantial amount by 23.10.2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner's attempt to challenge the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been negated by this Court at Jaipur Bench and his writ petition was dismissed in wake of availability of alternative remedy of challenging the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002') yet the petitioner has dared to file another writ petition, this time before the Principal Seat for almost identical relief.