Petitioners challenged the DRAT order under S. 34R of SARFAESI Act. They submitted a settlement proposal and gave up merit challenge. Court disposed of writ maintaining impugned order as no useful purpose to be served on 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.
$~10
M/S NEURAL MAGIC SYSTEMS LTD. & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate.
versus
CANARA BANK & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate for Canara Bank/R-1.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R % 12.01.2016
Page 1 of 2
W.P.(C) 1135/2015
respondent Bank.
CM Nos.2017/2015 & 22762/2015 (Stay)
Applications are dismissed as infructuous.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JANUARY 12, 2016/‘vn’
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(C) 1135/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging an order of specialised Tribunal when the petitioner intends to challenge solely on mistake apparent on record.
Whether a writ petition remains maintainable if the petitioner has given up the challenge on merits and seeks adjournment for settlement.
M/s Neural Magic Systems Ltd. & Ors
Canara Bank
Pradeep Nandrajog
Indermeet Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
