Disposed

Ms Sunrise Hotel v. State Bank of India

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Aug 2017CWP/1587/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While the interim order for status quo was vacated due to non-compliance, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's onetime settlement application within four weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's application for onetime settlement within four weeks after an opportunity of hearing.

Ms Sunrise Hotel Vs State Bank of India — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 1587 of 2017-I

¶3

Date of Decision: August 24, 2017

¶4

M/s Sunrise Hotel …Petitioner

¶5

Versus State Bank of India & others …Respondents. Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the Respondents: Mr.Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶8

Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with M/s Romesh Verma, Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate Generals and J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.3 and 4-State.

¶9

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral).

¶10

Undisputedly interim order dated 14.07.2017,

¶11

has yet not been complied with. As such, we vacate the interim protection for maintenance of status quo.

¶12

Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel, points out that now petitioner has requested the respondentauthorities for consideration of his application (Annexure P- 20) for onetime settlement.

¶13

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

As such, it is prayed that petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider and decide the application (Annexure P-20), in accordance with law. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel, has no objection to the same.

¶16

No other point is urged.

¶17

As prayed for, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the petitioner’s application/representation (Annexure P-20), in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Petitioner undertakes to fully cooperate. The decision be positively taken within a period of four weeks from today. In the meanwhile, it shall be open for the respondent-authorities to take such action as is permissible, in accordance with law.

¶18

Pending application(s), if any, also stand

¶19

disposed of.

¶20

(Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice.

¶21

August 24, 2017 (Purohit)

¶22

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge.

Ms Sunrise Hotel v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sunrise Hotel v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Kulvinder Singh

State of Hp Vs Mahanti Devi and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Hp

Jagdish Chand Vs State of Hp

Jagir Singh Vs State of Hp

Rekha Vs State of Hp