Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3052/2018 of SHAGUN CHADHA Vs INDIAN OIL COPORATION LTD AND OTHERS on 31 December 2018
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 3052 of 2018 Date of Decision: 31.12.2018 _____________________________________________________________________ Shagun Chadha …..Petitioner. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.: 3052 of 2018
Date of Decision: 31.12.2018_____________________________________________________________________Shagun Chadha…..Petitioner.Vs.Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others…..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?[1]For the petitioner:Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate,with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate. For the respondents:Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondentNo. 1. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2/Bank.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice
(Oral):
A dispute has arisen between the petitioner and respondentNo. 3, the genesis of which lies in an agreement entered between theparties for running the retail outlet, which has actually been alloted torespondent No. 3, under the Scheduled Castes Category (Women Quota).It is claimed that as per the agreement, 75% share in the businessbelongs to 3[rd] respondent, whereas 25% belongs to the petitioner.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Be that as it may, the said dispute is sub judice before thisCourt in Civil Suit No. 2 of 2017 and it appears that an injunction orderhas been passed against the petitioner in the said suit. As nothing hasbeen paid to the Bank since 2016, as a result of which, the Cash CreditLimit Account in the name of M/s Mahavir Filling Station is also likely tobe declared as ‘NPA’ at any moment. The petitioner’s property ismortgaged with the Bank. Apprehending that her property may not besold to recover the loan amount, the petitioner has filed the instant writpetition.
3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner andrespondents No. 1 and 2, we are satisfied that the appropriate recoursefor the petitioner would be to approach the learned Single Judge beforewhom the Civil Suit is pending for passing appropriate interim ordersand/or to decide the Cross-claim/Objections of the petitioner, inaccordance with law.
4. With liberty aforementioned, the writ petition is disposed of.However, the Bank may not auction the petitioner’s property for a periodof two weeks, to meanwhile enable the petitioner to approach the learnedSingle Judge in the pending Civil Suit. The Bank, however, shall be atliberty to put up its claim re: non-payment of Cash Credit Limit Advance,before the learned Single Judge. It is clarified that we have not expressed any views on merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shallalso stand disposed of.
(Surya Kant)
Chief Justice
December 31, 2018 (bhupender/YSC)
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge