9911796707
|
Home
The Allahabad High Court, through Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J., dismissed the writ petition challenging the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's (DRAT) order which held that respondent no. 3 was "neither necessary nor proper party" to the Bank's recovery suit, as he had "no privity of contract" and was not liable under the debt recovery proceedings. The petitioners' review application was rejected on the ground that it did not raise any permissible grounds for review, and could not be used to re-argue the merits. The Court distinguished the Apex Court judgment in Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, finding it inapplicable since respondent no. 3 had not received any financial facility nor defaulted. The Court concluded respondent no. 3 was rightly excluded and the petition was "thoroughly misconceived."
|
