HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGAKH AT BILASPUR WMT PETII ION (O No. S320 of20B7 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS (-.• Vijay Singh Kothari, son of Lsrte Laxniilal Ji Kotfaari, aged about 47 years, resideat of Liidt Road, Camp- II, Bhilai, Elistriet Duig. VERSUS Uniwi Bank of India, a barifcing eonyany duly ineorporated uader&e relevaat pnwist^s tf Baddng Companies (Aequisition and Traasfer of Uadertakiags) Act, 1988 faftVBng iutw-alia amongst other brandtes a braach office at Main Bianeh, Ramsagatpaia, Ra^iu- tia-ou^i the BraiMdi Manager, Braddi OfBatSy 2. Akhil Bhartiya Ouru (Biasidas Ma&BSaBati, a regstered society undec the Societies Act, 1959 having its regteration No. 665 Ihrou^i its authorized represBHtaiive Stei GuliAsJtUi^ son of SBri Lalehand Jam, Maaagt^ DiaectiM', M/s. BMlai &il<tes Pvfc Liarite^ B-2/11, ftavi Bhawan, O.E. Road, Raipur 3. M/s. Bhilai Buildera Pvt. Lunited, B-2/11, Ravi Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur through Ae Managing Director Shri Gulab-Jaia, s(» of Sliri Lalchand Jtun, resident:.of Choubey Coioay.Raipur. 4. Smt. Rachna Jain, wite of SBtei ftamod Jaan, aged aNut 38 yeas, fesidad ®fNear Gayatei Hospttal, Rohinipuraia, Raipw. WRTT PETmON UNDER AR11CLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjriON OF 8B: Hon'ble Shri Satisdh K. Aaritotri, J. •esefat: Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate tiwths petffioner. P»DER (Passed on 318t day of Atigust, 2007) t. Leamed couasel appeariag for the petitioner submits that the property in dispute has been transfeiTed in favour ofrespondentnQ. 4 by the Feqoonteait no. 2 aad 3 by wayoftwo registered sate deeds for a valud>le eonsideiation ofRs. 5 Lacs. The sale amount given by cheque by flie respondCTt No. 4 has been dishonoured. Thereafier, the petitioner entered iato aii ^i'eement f<a- r ^ purohase ofthe said shop. The Batde, respondent No. 1 h»o-eated a cha-ge over the said property without aimnng as to whetfaer the sale in fevour of r^pondent No. 4 was valid or not. 2. Be that as it may, fhis matter involves disputed question of facts and tUs Court lacks wherewithal to deal wiA the question of &ets and even otfaerwise.lhere is no legsl right or breach Ihereo^ vrfuch can be considered by Ihis Court under writjurisdiction. 3. Thus, tiiis petition is dismissed, sunnnarily. However, the petiticuier is at liberty to take recourse to other wme&y that may be available to hfln under law in civil proceedings. _ , Sd/- Sati.sh K.Agniliotii Judge Amit 'T7^ t