Yogesh Mittal v. Indian Overseas Bank

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5496/2016 YOGESH MITTAL ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Ms.Anjali Chopra, Adv.

versus INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr.Karan Khanna, Ms.Asmita Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 03.06.2016 CM 22906/2016 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5496/2016 1.

In the absence of a Presiding Officer DRAT at Delhi concurrent jurisdiction has been vested in the DRAT at Allahabad. The remedy of travelling to Allahabad from Delhi is not such an onerous remedy as would warrant instant writ petition to be entertained by us. 2.

We decline to entertain the writ petition because there is an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the order dated January 18, 2016 passed by the DRT-III Delhi.

3.

No cost.

W.P.(C) 5496/2016

CM 22905/2016 (stay) Dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JUNE 03, 2016 'ga'

W.P.(C) 5496/2016