The petitioner challenged an order of the BIFR abating a reference under the 1985 Act. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the banker's insolvency resolution failed to show how the petitioner was aggrieved.
The Writ Petition was dismissed as the petitioner could not show how she was aggrieved by the abatement of the reference.
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.
WP1059-22.2.sxw
PNP 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1059 OF 2011
Prabha Prakash Shenai versus
Union of India and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
.....
– Mr. Prakash R. Shenai Petitioner in person present. Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir with Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent No.4.
......
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ.
22 February 2011.
P.C. :
The Petitioner claims to have a decree in her favour. By the impugned order of the BIFR dated 21 December 2010, it has been recorded that the reference made under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 stands abated. In that view of the matter, it is impossible to comprehend as to how the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the BIFR. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an order abating a reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 is maintainable when the petitioner holds a decree in her favour.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabha Prakash Shenai
Union of India
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
