Disposed

Pramila Mishra v. Ao, Indian Bank, Cuttack

Orissa HC23 Dec 2022WP(C)/33680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the opposite party to consider the petitioner's representation for a one-time settlement within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the Opposite Party to consider the petitioner's representation for one-time settlement and pass appropriate order within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of th

Pramila Mishra Vs Ao, Indian Bank, Cuttack — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No.33680 of 2022

¶3

Pramila Mishra

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

A.O, Indian Bank, Cuttack & Others

¶8

….. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶12

ORDER 23.12.2022

¶13

Order This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. No.

¶14

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶16

“ Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is, therefore, prayed that your lordship may kindly be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition called for LCR issue rule NISI calling upon the opp. parties No.1 & 2 as to why the possession notice under Annexure-1 & e-auction notice published I the News paper on 22.11.2022 under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed and as to why the representation for one time settlement under Annexure-2 shall not be considered, if the opp. party failed to show cause or so insufficient cause made the rule absolute.

¶17

4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure-2 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

5 . As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

¶21

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶22

(B. P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE

¶23

Ashok/Sangita

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Pramila Mishra v. Ao, Indian Bank, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Mishra v. Ao, Indian Bank, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nhai, Sundergarh Vs Tata Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Keonjhar

R.J.Bharat Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Sahoo Vs Ao, Canara Bank, Bbsr

Basanti Naik Vs State of Odisha

Babuli Jhankar Vs State of Odisha

Gajendra Prasad Panda Vs State of Odisha