Writ petition challenging a demand notice for loan default. Court dismissed petition as no challenge was made to the basic recovery order. Ruled that consequential orders cannot be challenged without challenging the fundamental order.
Petitioner's application was dismissed without any interference in the demand notice.
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. - 5275 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bal Kishan Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Ratan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Dharmendra Vaish
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the demand notice/citation issued under Rule 141(3) of U.P. Revenue Code can be challenged in absence of challenge to the basic recovery order.
Whether consecutive relief can be granted against a challenge to consequential order without challenging the impugned basic order.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief given facts of loan advancement and default.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chitharanja Menon and others Vs. A. Balakrishnan and othersFollowed¶6
AIR 1977 SC 1720 · Who else cites this
Roshan Lal and others Vs. International Airport Authority of India and othersFollowed¶6
AIR 1981 SC 597 · Who else cites this
Gaon Shiksha Samiti, Auraiya and another Vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶6
2003(3) AWC 2466
Bal Kishan
State Of U P
Other Respondents
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajendra Kumar-IV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
