G.Jeyachandra v. the Presiding Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court held a writ petition filed despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Article 226 as legally not maintainable. Liberty was given to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.[MD].No.14588 of 2015 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
G.Jeyachandra : Petitioner
Vs.
- The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, IV Floor, Kalyani Towers, Melur Main Road, Madurai.
- The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District.
- The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is legally maintainable.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
G.Jeyachandra
- respondent
The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, IV Floor, Kalyani Towers, Melur Main Road, Madurai.
- respondent
The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Neyyoor, Kanyakumari District.
- respondent
The Authorised Officer, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore.
- respondent
Florance
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court