9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.10.2020 indicates that neither the argument that an interim order was passed by the DRT in favour of the borrower on the same date was made nor any argument was made that the remaining 25% amount was deposited by the petitioner at the time of e-auction should be refunded. On a pointed quarry by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition filed by the review petitioner assailing communication dated 23.07.2020 and auction notice dated 20.09.2020 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the e-auction took place on 17.03.2020, on the same day, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an interim order in favour of the borrower. The petitioner therefore could not deposit the remaining 75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not deny that in fact no prayer to that effect was made in the prayer clause of the memo of writ petition. The order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court therefore cannot be faulted for something which was not argued before it. Rehearing under the garb of review is not permissible. We do not see any reason to review the dated 22.10.2020. Accordingly, review petition fails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
