In thisSecond writ petition concerning a bank dispute, the High Court of Orissa held the petition not maintainable by referring to Supreme Court precedents on recovery proceedings. The petition was correspondingly dismissed without further relief.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.26406 of 2021
Sambit Setha …. Petitioner M/s. S.D. Tripathy, Advocate
…. Petitioner
-versus-
…. Chief Manager, Regional Office, Opposite Parties UCO Bank & Anr.
Mr. B.B. Swain, (Caveator)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
17.09.2021
Order No.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
Rs.2,00,000/- as outstanding of Rs.16,00,000/-(Rupees sixteen lakhs). It is apparent from the record that a proceeding before the DRT has already been initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to put forth his grievance before the Bank.
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
T.TUDU
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court judgments on bank recovery proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. Vs. K.C. MathewReferred¶15
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. Vs. K.C. Mathew, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 676 · Who else cites this
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal & AnrReferred¶15
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. vs. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr, Civil Appeal No.323 of 2021
Sambit Setha
Chief Manager, Regional Office, UCO Bank
S.K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
