Dismissed

Akashdeep Singh v. Administrator, the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Jun 2022RP/236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge ordered condonation of delay in refiling the review petition. The review petition was dismissed as no error appeared on the face of the record, and the grounds raised were not acceptable for review.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in re-filing the Review Petition allowed; Review Petition NRP 236 of 2021 dismissed.

Akashdeep Singh Vs Administrator, the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶5

REVIEW PETITION No.236 of 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

AKASHDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI GURBACHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.148/12, RAM NAGAR, MANDI TOWN, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶8

….PETITIONER/APPELLANT.

¶9

(BY. MR. R.L. CHAUDHARY AND MR. H.R. SIDHU, ADVOCATES )

¶10

AND

¶11

1. ADMINISTRATOR, THE MANDI URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MANDI, H.P. THROUGH ITS MANAGER. 2. MANJEET SINGH SON OF LATE SHRI LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.110/12, RAM NAGAR, MANDI TOWN, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. 3. KARAN DEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI MANJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.110/12, RAM NAGAR,

¶12

¶13

MANDI TOWN, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶14

….RESPONDENTS.

¶15

(BY. MR. SUMESH RAJ, MR. DINESH THAKUR, MR. SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, WITH MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR RESPONDENT NO.4.)

¶16

(MR. H.S. RANGRA, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3).

¶17

(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶18

Whether approved for reporting ?¹ No

¶19

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

CMP No.7031 of 2022

¶22

By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicant for condonation of delay in refiling the Review Petition.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, this application is allowed, as prayed for, and delay in refiling the Review Petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

¶24

¶25

¶26

Review Petition No.236 of 2021

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, calling for review of the judgment. The contention, which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to findings returned in Para12 of the judgment, is no ground for reviewing the judgment. In case, petitioner was aggrieved by the findings so returned, then the appropriate course would have been to assail the same, but review thereof cannot be sought on the grounds raised in the petition.

¶28

Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶29

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶30

June 13, 2022 (Rishi)

Akashdeep Singh v. Administrator, the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akashdeep Singh v. Administrator, the Mandi Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Chand Now Deceased through Lrs Rakesh Chand Vs Kartar Singh

Ranbir Singh Vs Sandeep Managing Director of Hrtc and Others

Ravi Dutt Vs Nisha Singh and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Vs Ishwar Dass

Ram Saran Vs Hrtc

Vivek Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.