Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
BANK OF BARODA – Appellant
Versus
PINNACLE VEHICLES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges and decisions on show cause notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. final decisions affecting procedural outcome. (Para 4) |
| 3. appellant's contention about writ maintainability. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's observations on jurisdiction and procedure in handling notices. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 13.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5367 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition.
2. The appellant-Bank was the third respondent in the writ petition, while the respondents herein were the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 01.12.2021 (Ext. P1) issued to them, as well as the communication dated 20.12.2021 (Ext. P2) pertaining to the compromise settlement, which had not taken effect, and seeking a direction to the appellant to withhold the recovery proceedings already initiated.
3.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had also sought directions to the appellant
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
