The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking interference with the interim order of the DRAT. The order was balanced and not arbitrary, so the appeal would remain pending without undue hardship to the petitioner.
The interim order of the DRAT was not interfered with.
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.
WPL.3546.2015.903.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3546 OF 2015
Mohammed Hanif Syed and Anr. } Petitioners versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. } Respondent
Ms. S. V. Sonawane with Mr. Sayed Zia Amir Mohiddin for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane i/b. M/s. M & S. Legal for the Respondent.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED :- DECEMBER 18, 2015
P.C. :-
Having heard both sides, we do not find any reason to interfere with the interim order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).
Page 1 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
WPL.3546.2015.903.doc
we decline to interfere in Writ Jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Mohammed Hanif Syed and Anr.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
REVATI MOHITE DERE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
