In a writ petition alleging fraud regarding loan count, this Court held that since disputed questions of fact and law existed, it would not adjudicate in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate authority.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy before the appropriate authority/forum.
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. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8877 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajnish Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rewti Raman Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has received instructions and provided the loan papers pertaining to three loans obtained by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been made a victim of fraud and misrepresentation. It is submitted that he had taken only one loan not three.
On being confronted with the statement of bank account filed by the petitioner at annexure-2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank account is that of the petitioner.
In view thereof, this Court in writ jurisdiction would not enter into disputed questions of fact and law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take remedy before the appropriate authority/forum, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 S.Prakash
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should enter into disputed questions of fact and law regarding the number of loans taken by the petitioner.
Rajnish
State Of U.P.
Respondent Bank
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
