Dilip Raghunath Pol v. Bank Of Maharashtra Thr Its Managing Director And Ceo And ORS

bipin prithiani 3-wp-10691.22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2022.09.17 15:31:42 +0530 BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10691 OF 2022 Dilip Raghunath Pol ...

Petitioner

Versus

Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

...

Respondents ****** Mrs. Sneha Prabhu a/w Ms. Kinnari Mehta for the Petitioner. Mr. Girish Utangale a/w Mr. Shahzad M. Pandey i/by M/s. Utangale & Co. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

****** CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2022 P.C. :- .

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Identification Committee did not provide the necessary opportunity to the petitioner, many applications were filed before the Identification Committee for the opportunity of hearing but no cognizance was taken of the same. 2.

The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that the opportunity was provided to the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was provided by the Identification Committee is erroneous. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has a remedy before the Review Committee. 3.

As the petitioner has a remedy before the Review Committee, the petitioner can raise all the grounds available to him before the Review Committee.

bipin prithiani 3-wp-10691.22.doc 4.

In light of that, at this stage, we are not inclined to consider the petition on merits.

5.

Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy. In that event, all contentions are open. No costs. [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]