A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal order was dismissed. The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction as the petitioner had an alternative remedy available, as the Review Petition was pending before the Tribunal.
Petition disposed of without exercising writ jurisdiction.
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.
wp-4343-10
1
Chandka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2010
Kamlesh Gandhi
..Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Saket More i/b. Vidhii Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Nainesh N. Amin for Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
24 February 2011.
P.C. :
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the issue which is sought to be raised in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution has been raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court has been informed that the Review Petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been listed for final hearing on 31 March 2011. In that view of the matter, since the Petitioner has already taken recourse to the available remedy in law, we do not consider it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226. We however clarify that we have not expressed any
wp-4343-10
2
Chandka
opinion on the merits of the rival contentions which it would be open to the Tribunal to determine. All questions including of maintainability are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamlesh Gandhi
The State of Maharashtra
Ors.
D. Y. Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
