Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to extend loan repayment. Petitioner failed to deposit demanded amount to show bonafides. Court found no ground for writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
223
Civil Writ Petition No.12196 of 2016 Date of Decision: September 27, 2016
Rajbir Singh
....Petitioner
versus
The State Bank of India and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Sonia Kinra 2016.09.29 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.12196 of 2016
-2-
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
September 27, 2016
(RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
Whether reportable?
Yes/No
Sonia Kinra 2016.09.29 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 to direct the bank to extend the loan repayment period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajbir Singh
The State Bank of India
another
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
