The highest court held that a writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable for accounting of a loan account since no statutory recovery provision was invoked. The petition was dismissed as misconceived.
The writ petition seeking accounting of the loan account is dismissed as not maintainable in writ proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4907 of 2019
Petitioner :- Baba Omendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Order Date :- 13.2.2019 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for demanding accounting of a loan account where no recovery has been effected under any statutory provision.
Whether the petitioner's complaint regarding the loan account constitutes a recoverable and maintainable statutory cause of action warranting judicial intervention via writ.
Baba Omendra Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
