The High Court quashed an impugned order of the DRAT that modified an earlier decision without providing notice to the petitioner, holding that natural justice required a hearing before such modification.
The impugned modified order dated 01.05.2014 is set-aside; DRAT to pass fresh order after hearing.
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.
wp4918-14
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4918 OF 2014
Ramesh Yadav V/s. Allahabad Bank
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr.Prashant Pandit i/b Mr.Sunil A. Humbre for the Petitioner. Mr.V.N. Ajikumar i/b VNA Legal for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2014.
P.C. :-
1/2
wp4918-14
to have been given to the petitioner before modifying the order. This is more so in view of the fact that the respondents had not made an application for correction / modification.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a modified order passed without notice violates natural justice when the party did not apply for modification.
Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal should afford a hearing before passing a fresh order.
Ramesh Yadav
Allahabad Bank
S.J. VAZIFDAR
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
