Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S VIJAY RUBBER INDUSTRIES & ANOTHER versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Vijay Rubber Industries & Another v. State Bank Of India & Others - WRIT - C No. - 47518 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16155 (1 October 2007)

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners.

By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Chair Person, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad rejecting the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay. The order dated 6.7.2005 was passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by which order the application for setting aside the ex parte judgement dated 13.2.2003 was rejected. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order along with an application for condonation of delay. The the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the delay condonation application. The ground given by the petitioner in his application was that the petitioner met with an accident by which he got fracture in his hand and could not instruct his counsel by means of telephonic communication or by any other means to file appeal. The the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has referred the detailed correspondence which was made by the petitioners with the Bank even after his accident. The Debt Recovery Tribunal has considered the explanation given by the petitioner and had rightly concluded that there was no justifiable ground for condonation of delay. I do not find any error in the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The order impugned does not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, however, observed that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner in approaching the Bank for one time settlement if it is so permissible and permitted by the Bank in accordance with law.

With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.

D/-1.10.2007

SCS/47518


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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