Full Text
Translation output
A-54 a)
% 19.7.2011
Present: Mr.SanjayJha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.12945/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.817/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.817/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 6.6.2011.
It is not in dispute that vide order of the DRAT dated 7.2.20 11 the claim of the Oriental Bank of Commerce had been decreed; the entire determined amount had to be liquidated by the petitioner in four quarterly installments; first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- had to be paid by way of demand draft or cash on or before 23.3.2011 pursuant to which the Account Officer of the bank would hand over the physical possession of the suit assets to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has defaulted and could not make the payment of the first installment in time. Impugned order noted this as also further contention of the petitioner/respondent no.3 that as to whether in these circumstances he was entitled to get back the property in terms of the order of the DRAT.
This order in no manner suffers from any infirmty. Matter has been fixed before the DRAT for arguments on 25.7.2011. The impugned order calls for no interference. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 19, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:18929
% 19.7.2011
Present: Mr.SanjayJha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM No.12945/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.817/2011
*
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.817/2011
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 6.6.2011.
It is not in dispute that vide order of the DRAT dated 7.2.20 11 the claim of the Oriental Bank of Commerce had been decreed; the entire determined amount had to be liquidated by the petitioner in four quarterly installments; first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- had to be paid by way of demand draft or cash on or before 23.3.2011 pursuant to which the Account Officer of the bank would hand over the physical possession of the suit assets to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has defaulted and could not make the payment of the first installment in time. Impugned order noted this as also further contention of the petitioner/respondent no.3 that as to whether in these circumstances he was entitled to get back the property in terms of the order of the DRAT.
This order in no manner suffers from any infirmty. Matter has been fixed before the DRAT for arguments on 25.7.2011. The impugned order calls for no interference. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 19, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:18929
JUDGMENT