Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

M/S Rahul Tractor Spares Through Dilip ... vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 3 May, 2016

Author: Vikash Jain

Bench: Vikash Jain

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5446 of 2012
                     ======================================================
                     M/s Rahul Tractor Spares represented by Dilip Kumar S/o Laxmi Narayan
                     Singh Proprietor Of M/s Rahul Tractor Spares Ram Lakhan Market,
                     Muzaffarpur Road, Mahua, District - Vaishali
                                                                              .... .... Petitioner
                                                       Versus
                     1. Central Bank of India through the Regional Manager, Regional Office,
                     Muzaffarpur
                     2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mahua Branch, Vaishali
                     3. The Authorized Officer, Central Bank of India, Mahua Branch, Vaishali
                     4. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. branch Manager, Hajipur
                     Branch Cinema Road, Hajipur
                                                                           .... .... Respondents
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
                     For the Petitioner       :   None
                     For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate
                     For Respondent No.4 :       Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
                     ORAL ORDER

7       03-05-2016

None appears on behalf of the petitioner yesterday despite repeated calls and once again the petitioner is not represented through any counsel today.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the remedy by way of statutory appeal available to the petitioner against the action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

3. In view of non-appearance of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/-

U