Petitioner sought direction to prevent seizure of his vehicle due to a pending loan dispute. Opposite parties stated the loan was closed and NOC issued, rendering the petition 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.19222 of 2012
Jagdish Sharma
..… Petitioner
Mr. Suryakanta Behera, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ranjan Kumar Rout, Advocate
-versus-
Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and others
…. Opp. Parties
Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahi, Advocate (For Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2)
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
25.08.2022
and NOC has already been issued. Hence, the writ petition has become infructuous.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 1 of 1
Jagdish Sharma
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
