✦ Himachal Pradesh High Court · 23 Nov 2011

Rakesh Awasthi v. State of H.P & Ors.

SHIMLA. CWP No. 10051 of 2011RAJIV SHARMA

Case at a glance

Order date
23 Nov 2011
Bench
RAJIV SHARMA

Outcome

Disposed of

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd November, 2011. (tr/kck) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3

Judgment

Coram The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: (cid:147)(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned notice undated Annexure P-1, dt. 2.9.2011 issued to the petitioner by the respondents. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reconcile the accounts and then allow reasonable time to the petitioner to repay the outstanding loan amount. (iii) That the entire proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioners may kindly be declared as illegal and violative of Section 13 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.(cid:148)

2.

In the nature of the order, we propose to pass in this case, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 2 respondents. It is submitted that Annexure P-2 is pending with the third respondent. There will be a direction to the third respondent to look into the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also an opportunity to verify the accounts. The petitioner may present himself before the third respondent along with a copy of this judgment and the copy of the writ petition on 7th December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. It is made clear that only after considering the grievances of the petitioner, as above, and communicating the decision to the petitioner, any further coercive action shall be taken.

Operative part

3.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd November, 2011. (tr/kck) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 23 Nov 2011. The bench was RAJIV SHARMA.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Himachal Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. SHIMLA. CWP No. 10051 of 2011). ← Search more judgments