9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would always be maintainable. Thus, we need not say anything more on this issue which is already set at rest. The facts would clearly show that the petitioner has no liability whatsoever to satisfy the debt incurred by M/s. Ideal Energy Projects Limited for whom his deceased father stood as guarantor and as such, the petitioner could not have been joined as a party-respondent to the ongoing proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. These proceedings are without jurisdiction, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. Petition allowed. - Writ Petition No. 8563 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - Sunil B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed guarantor Shri Dattatray Mhaiskar and the person who has succeeded to the estate viz. Mother of the petitioner, has been made party before the DRT. He submits that one who succeeds to the estate, succeeds to the debt also. He contends that at any rate, the impugned notice is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. This has been disagreed to by Shri Karmarkar, Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank. However, the whole stress of the argument of Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank is that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner which the petitioner has not availed of. 4. The objection as regards maintainability of this petition on the ground of the alternate remedy, has already been rejected by this Court by sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by the respondent-Bank lacks in these characteristics and therefore, no proceedings initiated under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 against a person like the petitioner would be maintainable. 7. Notice dated 16-3-2018 has been addressed to three noticees. The first noticee is shown as legal representative of Dattatray P. Mhaiskar by name Sudha Dattatray Mhaiskar, the second noticee has been named as Jayant Dattatray Mhaiskar, who is, admittedly, the brother of the petitioner and the third noticee is the present petitioner. In the last but one paragraph of the suit, a statement has been made that since the noticee Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives of the deceased guarantor (Dattatray Mhaiskar), who have succeeded to the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
