Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S. Dadu Research Centre v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Indsutries Lucknow & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 18193 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7119 (3 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed  raising the grievance that the petitioner had taken loan from the respondents and repayment of all the instalments could not be made in time. Therefore, they have cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 3.3.2006.

Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount if some breathing period is given to him by the respondent authorities. Therefore, this Court should quash the impugned order dated 3rd March 2006 and direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to deposit the money, as he is willing to repay all the outstanding dues in lump sum.

Shri S.N. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents has submitted that this is not open to this Court to issue any direction in this regard to the respondent authorities, as it is a case of non-statutory contract between the parties. However, he assures that if petitioner moves a representation before the respondent no. 4 depositing 1/4th of the outstanding dues within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order, his case shall be considered in accordance with law.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction that in case petitioner files appropriate representation, depositing 1/4th of the outstanding dues within a period of three weeks from today, the respondent concerned shall consider his case sympathetically and issue appropriate directions.

However in case the amount is not deposited by the petitioner within the said period of three weeks, there shall be no obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Meanwhile, no third party interest shall be created in the same.


AKSI/wp 18193/06


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.