Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA versus MANAGING DIRECTOR THE CENTRAL

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RADHE SHYAM SHARMA v MANAGING DIRECTOR THE CENTRAL - CW Case No. 559 of 2003 [2007] RD-RJ 2785 (18 May 2007)

CW 559/03

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.559/03

Radhey Shyam Sharma

Versus

Managing Director & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER :: 18/05/2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

None present for petitioner

Mr. R.K. Sharma, for respondents

***

Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the notice of recovery served upon him dated 19th December, 2002 [Ann.3].

Petitioner took loan of Rs.13,000/- on 14th

September, 1993 on repayment of 60 equal monthly instalments, but failed to pay its instalment. On account of non-payment, respondents issued a notice u/s.117 of Rajasthan Co-operative

Societies Act, 1965 on 11th September, 2000 which was served upon petitioner on 14th September, 2000 calling upon him to pay the outstanding dues for a sum of Rs.37038/- within 7 days and if he disputes the demand, written explanation be submitted by him. Against the notice dated 11/09/2000, petitioner approached this court and interim order was passed on 24th January, 2003 that if petitioner deposits Rs.16,000/- with the respondents, no coercive steps will be taken by respondents for recovery of the outstanding amount.

CW 559/03

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition in the month of July, 2003 and even by that time, no payment was made by petitioner even as observed by this court under its interim order dated 24th January, 2003.

Undisputedly after the notice served upon petitioner u/s.117 of the Act, he has failed to submit objection and apart from it, the final order passed by respondents, is appealable u/s.124 of the Act. In view of alternative remedy available to petitioner in assailing the notice served upon him, this court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI],J.

FRBOHRA,JR.P.A.


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.