Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that DRAT Kolkata vested with jurisdiction provides an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the disputed order.
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs awarded.
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.
$~29
M/S NARENDRA PRECISION FASTENERS & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal and Mr.Sunil Singh Parihar, Advocates.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 01.08.2016
CM Nos.27330-27331/2016
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6682/2016 & CM No.27329/2016 (Stay)
W.P.(C) 6682/2016
Page 1of 2
order before learned DRAT Delhi the same shall be decided by the Appellate Tribunal as per law.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
AUGUST 01, 2016
‘st’
W.P.(C) 6682/2016
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a debit card transaction order is maintainable in the absence of a Delhi DRAT.
Whether the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy before DRAT Kolkata.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Narendra Precision Fasteners & Ors.
State Bank of India
Pradeep Nandrajog
Pratibha Rani
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
