Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71931 (ALL)

M/S KRASA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

WRIC/21724/2025 · 2025-07-16

Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal, Shekhar B Saraf

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115634-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21724 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Krasa International Pvt Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarwar Ali Siddique Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Afzal Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has sought for the following substantial reliefs: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by respondent no.2 in complaint no.NCR144/03/91517/2022 Shakhi Bhagya Vs. M/s Krasa International Pvt. Ltd as well as recovery certificate dated 17.05.2025 and reminder recovery certificate dated 09.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 and further pleased to stay recovery proceeding if any has been initiated in pursuant to the impugned order dated 11.06.2024. B. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the entire proceeding of the complaint no.NCR144/03/91517/2022 Shakhi Bhagya Vs. M/s Krasa International Pvt. Ltd." 3. After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the documents, it is clear that the order dated June 11, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2 is in reference to a fresh cause of action that has arisen after completion of the project by the petitioner. In the earlier round of litigation, the appellate authority had allowed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the complaint had been filed by the respondent No.6/allottee in a premature manner. Subsequently, the complaint has once again been filed by the allottee after completion of the project, and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. 4. In light of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad