The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition as not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while granting interim protection from coercive measures.
Respondents directed not to take coercive measures against the petitioner till 5th January, 2018.
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.
WP(C) NO.1639 of 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate, Mr. N.G. Nandi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S. Mahajan, Advocate.
20.12.2017.
Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Mahajan, the learned counsel for respondents, who has raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition.
In our opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacy statutory remedy. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. However, in order to enable her to file appropriate application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal Guwahati, the respondents are directed not to take coercive measure against the petitioner till 5th January, 2018 .
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Dipesh
WP(C) NO.1639 of 2017 Page 1 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable.
Whether interim relief to prevent coercive measures is necessary.
Petitioner
Respondents
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
