A writ petition challenging a debtor's failure to repay dues and seeking directions to the bank for an extension and document production was rejected as misconceived under Article 226.
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
wp-10577.12
ash
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10577 OF 2012
Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.
ShriR.V. Bansode for the Petitioner. Shri Abhijeet Rane for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K.MENON, JJ DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY 2015
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner is a borrower of the Third Respondent. The first prayer is for directing the Respondents to grant a period of one year to the Petitioner to repay the outstanding dues. Such a prayer in a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. The second prayer which is the only other substantive relief sought is for directing the Respondents to produce documents of the flat premises subject matter of this Petition before this Court. Both the prayers are
2
wp-10577.12
ash
completely misconceived and cannot be considered in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has submitted an offer for settlement to the Third Respondent.
(A.K.MENON, J) (A.S.OKA, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can direct a bank to grant a period of time to repay dues or to produce premises documents.
Whether a borrower can seek directions from the Court against the lender for repayment terms and document production.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶11
Petitioner
Third Respondent
A.S. OKA
A.K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court