D.Vinod Kumar v. M/s.Union Bank of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
WRIT PETITION NO : 20161 of 1994 Between: D.Vinod Kumar S/o.D.A.R.Benzamin M/s.Janapriya Super Market, R/o.H.No.1/4,Shanthi Apartments Mettuguda Secunderbad. ..... PETITIONER
AND M/s.Union Bank of India rep. by its Branch Manager Saifabad Branch, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent viz., M/s. Union Bank of India to enhance the credit facilities to the venture of the petitioner viz., M/s. Janapriya Super Market to Rs.15 lakhs Advocate for the Petitioner: MR.T.K.SRIDHAR Advocate for the Respondent : S.C. for Union Bank of India. The Court made the following :
O R D E R :
Operative part
None for the Petitioner. Even the prayer made in the Writ Petition is such that it can not be allowed by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent to enhance its credit facilities which is purely a contractual matter for which the petitioner will have to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ---------------------- 24.06.2004 Two CD copies. DRK/TVR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 24 Jun 2004.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.