On challenge to an interlocutory order by the DRT, the Court held that the Securitisation Application having been disposed of by the DRT, nothing survived in the writ petition. The petition was accordingly disposed of and interim protection was vacated, clarifying that it would not preclude other appropriate legal proceedings.
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. 5656-17
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 5656 OF 2017
Mr. Muktar Alam Shaikh … Petitioner Versus Allahabad Bank And Anr … Respondents
Ms. Priyanka Kothari i/b Vivek V. Phadke, for the Petitioner. Mr. V. N. Ajitkumar, for the Respondent Nos. 1.
Mr. R. D. Motkari, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 1, 2017 PC.
. Present petitioner in the present Petitioner is challenging interlocutory order passed by the DRT before the DRAT. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 that vide order passed on 20th June, 2017, the Securitisation Application No. 406 of 2016 has already been disposed of by the DRT. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the petition. Writ petition is therefore, disposed of. Needless to state that interim protection stands vacated. It is clarified that disposal of this petition would not come in the way of Petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings permitted in law.
Sd/Sd/[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
1 / 1
VPH
Allahabad Bank
B. R. Gavai
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
