The High Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority first seeking the claimed reliefs before disposing of the writ petition, noting no claim was laid with the appropriate authority earlier.
Directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority first for the claimed reliefs.
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. 13681 of 2018 Decided on : 28.05.2018
M/s Sardar Associates Private Limited
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
PRESENT: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral)
The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Prohibition , restraining the respondents from initiating recovery proceedings without show cause notice and adjudication order. A further challenge has been made to Annexure P-2, dated 11th May, 2018, whereby, the respondent has asked buyer of the petitioner i.e. M/s Arora Iron & Steel Rolling Mills to pay money to the Department, which he owes to the petitioner.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) May 28, 2018 JUDGE J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Jawala Ram 2018.05.30 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
M/s Sardar Associates Private Limited
Union of India
Ajay Kumar Mittal
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
