Kishore Samrite Vs. Union of India

Kishore Samrite vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054001

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1054001
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 22, 2013
Subject: Banking

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Banking

Key legal issue: Banking

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kishore Samrite

Advocate Shri. Manish Mishra

Respondent

Union of India

Excerpt

kishore samrite vs.union of india. & others writ petition no.664 ”22. 2.2013: shri manish mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. even though it is stated in the writ petition that the income tax department has not conducted the enquiry against respondent no.5. but during the cours.of hearing it is stated that petitioner has sought for certain information with regard to respondent no.5 under the right to information act, but same has not been granted. if the application of the petitioner under the right to information act has not been considered or information has not been given, petitioner has remedy to file an appeal under the said act itself, therefore, interference by this court is not called for. accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recours.of remedy available under the right to information act. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Kishore Samrite Vs.Union of India.

& Others Writ Petition No.664 ”

22. 2.2013: Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Even though it is stated in the writ petition that the Income Tax Department has not conducted the enquiry against respondent No.5.

But during the couRs.of hearing it is stated that petitioner has sought for certain information with regard to respondent No.5 under the Right to Information Act, but same has not been granted.

If the application of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act has not been considered or information has not been given, petitioner has remedy to file an appeal under the said Act itself, therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.of remedy available under the Right to Information Act.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Kishore Samrite vs Union of India Same Subject Banking