In a writ petition challenging an interim order, the High Court declined to pass orders after observing that a connected writ petition preferred by the respondents had already disposed the issue, consequently dismissing the matter without commenting on maintainability.
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. - 71
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1761 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajeev Chutani Respondent :- Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Srestha Pandey,Ashok Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal,R.V. Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.2.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.6, Meerut in Suit No.857 of 2014 (Rajeev Chutani vs. Bank of India).
Shri Vinayak Mithal and Shri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that against the impugned order the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy of filing a revision.
In view of the order passed today in connected Matters under Article 227 No.2717 of 2020 preferred by the respondent nos.2 and 3, no order is required to be passed in the present matter.
Consequently, the present matter is disposed of.
However, it is always open to the petitioners to press his relief before the appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 22.10.2020 RKP
Rajeev Chutani
Bank Of India
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
