The court observed that a Section 14 order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, rendering it infructuous, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Petition disposed of as 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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13424 of 2016 Decided on : 08.11.2016
Punjab National Bank
. . . Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Gurgaon and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
PRESENT: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Add. AG, Haryana.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the present writ petition, an order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act'), has been passed by the District Magistrate, Gurgaon. It is submitted that in view thereof, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
(RAMENDRA JAIN) November 08, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Jawala Ram 2016.11.09 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab National Bank
District Magistrate, Gurgaon
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
