Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP/32832/2025 of SAURABH JOSHI Vs UCO BANK AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2025
UCO Bank and Anr. CMP No.32832 of 2025 in CWP No. 20199 of 2025 31.12.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents. Mr. Skandh Sharma and Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocates, for the non-applicant/petitioner. By way of instant application, prayer has been made by the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Saurabh Joshi v. UCO Bank and Anr.
CMP No.32832 of 2025 in CWP No. 20199 of 2025
31.12.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents.
Mr. Skandh Sharma and Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocates, for the non-applicant/petitioner.
By way of instant application, prayer has been made by the applicants/respondents for clarification/ modification of order dated 20.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20199 of 2025 to the extent that while reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation before the competent authority within three days praying therein to keep the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 in abeyance for a period of six months, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation, operation of impugned order dated 16.12.2025, was not stayed by this Court.
Though having carefully perused para-3 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court sees no ambiguity in the same and there is no scope of clarification, but yet it is further clarified that vide Judgment dated 20.12.2025, this court has already upheld the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, but taking note of medical condition of the petitioner coupled with the fact that his minor child is studying in UKG, reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority with a prayer to keep impugned order dated 16.12.2025 in abeyance for a period of six months, but in that regard, decision, if any, is /was to be taken by the respondents. Since this Court has already upheld the impugned order dated 16.12.2025, there is no occasion, if any, to conclude that operation of order dated 16.12.2025, has been stayed for a period of six months, rather in that regard, decision, if any, is to be taken by the applicants/respondents. With the aforesaid clarification, present, present application is disposed of.
December 31, 2025
(Sandeep Sharma),
manjit
Judge