The petitioner's writ petition challenging a recovery certificate was dismissed by the High Court as infructuous since the recovery certificate had already been withdrawn by the bank, extinguishing the cause of action.
The writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1134 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S G.R. Industries And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 has filed his vakalatnama in the Court today. The same is taken on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is that the recovery certificate, which has wrongly been issued against the petitioner, has already been withdrawn by the bank and as such, no cause of action survives to press this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objections to dismiss the petition as having become infructuous.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021 Saurabh
M/S G.R. Industries And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
