Single Judge High Court of Gujarat disposed of a Special Civil Application. The Court held it was not inclined to entertain the writ due to the availability of a statutory remedy under the Debt Recovery Tribunal, without examining merits.
No further order; writ application disposed of without merits being gone into.
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.
C/SCA/9837/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9837 of 2022
==========================================================
JAYABEN DINESHBHAI RATHOD
Versus CANARA BANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR VISHWAS K SHAH(5364) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 22/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
“Heard Mr. Maulik Soni, learned advocate for Mr.Bhuvnesh Gahlot, learned advocate for the petitioners.
Issue Notice, making it returnable on 06/06/2022.
Copy of the petition be shared with learned advocate Mr.Vishvas K. Shah, who normally appears for respondent-bank.”
Page 1 of 2
C/SCA/9837/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2022
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Vahid
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ application when a statutory remedy via DRT is available.
JAYABEN DINESHBHAI RATHOD
CANARA BANK
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
