The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's request for an extension to comply with payment conditions. The court noted the claim was fully satisfied by the respondent.
The writ petition is dismissed and parties bear their own costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.1467 OF 2004
M/s. Ram Laxman Hotels Ltd. & Others Vs.
M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Others
..Petitioners.
..Respondents.
Mr. Aniket Rane i/b Mr. Rajeev Matkar for the Petitioner. Ms. Vandana Jaisingh for the Respondents.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
22nd August, 2007.
P.C. :
2
3
been stated that the entire amount of Rs.7,52,34,294/- has already been recovered and the entire claim stands satisfied. In view of this, we find no reason to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the DRAT order dismissing the petitioner's request for further time to comply with conditions.
Whether the claim stands satisfied by the recovery of the entire amount as stated in the respondent's affidavit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Ram Laxman Hotels Ltd. & Others
M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Others
SWATANTER KUMAR
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
