High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's action under the SARFAESI Act filed in 2009, holding it infructuous due to the elapsed twelve years and the loss of validity of the earlier interim order following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as it has become infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12800 of 2009
M/s.Krushna Cement Stores
…. Petitioner Mr. M.R.Mohapatra , Advocate
-versus-
Branch Manager, Union Bank of India and another
…. Opposite Parties
Mr. Saroj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 14.7.2021.
Order No.
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
Jaiswal and another passed in Civil Appeal No.323/2021. Since the cause of action in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, we dispose of the Writ Petition.
(S.K.Mishra) Judge
( Savitri Ratho ) Judge
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
AKB
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act has become infructuous due to the lapse of time and subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
Whether the interim order passed by the High Court has lost its validity in the light of the Supreme Court judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. –vrs- Bishal Jaiswal and anotherReferred¶14
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. –vrs- Bishal Jaiswal and another
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Krushna Cement Stores
Branch Manager, Union Bank of India
another
S.K.MISHRA
SAVITRI RATHO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
