The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Debts Recovery Tribunal's refusal to condone delay. The bench held the cause shown was insufficient and the petition lacked merits.
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.
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6616 OF 2016
Vijayprakash Deepnarayan Pandey & Anr. .… Petitioners V/s. Janseva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd., Borivali (West), Mumbai & Anr. …. Respondents
Mr. Ram M. Upadhyay for the Petitioners.
Mr. Amarendra Mishra for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.
DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2016.
P.C. :
1/2
WP-6616-16.doc
Petitioners, therefore, does not merit interference in our equitable and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This jurisdiction is discretionary as well.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
2/2
WP-6616-16.doc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cause shown for condoning delay in the filing of the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is sufficient to interfere with the impugned order.
Vijayprakash Deepnarayan Pandey & Anr.
Janseva Sahakari Bank (Borivali) Ltd., Borivali (West), Mumbai & Anr.
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
