Kundan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1402 of 2022 ====================================================== Kundan Kumar Son of Jaimangal Prasad Resident of Village - Musalmani Chak, P.O. - Gahopur, P.S. - Mainpura, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through Secretary Cum Registration General of Inspector, Registration Excise and Provision Department, Patna. 2.
The Collector Cum District Registrar, Muzaffarpur. 3.
The District Sub- Registrar, Muzaffarpur.
4.
The State Bank of India Through its Chief Manager Local Head Offices at West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800001.
5.
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sutapatti Branch, Muzaffarpur. 6.
The Recovery Officer, Debt. Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 7.
Shambhu Prasad Yadav Son of Late Ruplal Rai Resident of Village - Shahbajpur, Ambedkar Colony, P.O. - Bhikhanpur, P.S. - Ahiyapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 8.
Vidyanand Rai Son of Late Ruplal Rai Resident of Village - Shahbajpur, Ambedkar Colony, P.O. - Bhikhanpur, P.S. - Ahiyapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 9.
Sachidanand Kumar Son of Shambhu Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Shahbajpur, Ambedkar Colony, P.O. Bhikhanpur, P.S. - Ahiyapur, DistrictMuzaffarpur. 10.
Madhubala Kumari W/o Vijay Kumar, Resident of Village - Shahbajpur, P.S. - Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Vikash Kumar (Sc11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 29-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
2/5
3/5
4/5 In view of the fact that now D.R.A.T. is functional, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that, the petition may be permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file an appeal before the D.R.A.T. or to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum and to take recourse to such other alternate remedies which are equally efficacious in law.
Prayer allowed.
Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
Since petitioner has been pursuing the matter before this court, if the petitioner were to prefer an appeal/take recourse to remedies under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, should the petitioner file the appeal within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall not be allowed to come in the way and the appeal shall be heard on the merits on the basis of materials available on record. We are passing such directions only for the reason that the D.R.A.T, was not functional and operational and the petitioner had been pursuing the remedies before this Court.
5/5 Interlocutory application(s), if any. shall also stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) Rajiv/veenaAFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date