Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S.Supehia, R.T.Vachhani
Gautambhai Govindlal Shah – Appellant
Versus
Bank Of Baroda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proceedings heard and decided. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner prayed for specific relief. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details of proceedings and interim orders. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. application for condonation of delay analyzed. (Para 7 , 9 , 21) |
| 5. opposition to petitioner's claims. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. history of petitioner’s litigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. further appeals and their outcomes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. court's observations on protraction of litigation. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. order and implications of the judgment. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. Looking to the nature of the litigation and the course of action adopted by the petitioner, in order to protract the recovery proceedings of the respondent-Bank of Baroda, the matter has been heard today at length and is decided finally.
2. RULE. Learned advocate Ms.Lodha appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-Bank of Baroda. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent No.3.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“8-(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direc
The court affirmed that abuse of legal process to delay recovery proceedings is impermissible and emphasized the necessity of balancing procedural integrity with substantive justice.
The court established that the application for condonation of delay must be decided before imposing any deposit requirements under relevant statutes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
