Suriyan Benefit Fund (Madras) v. M/s.Icici Bank Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
The respondent bank, facing a writ petition challenging a DRAT order dismissing a tenant's impleading application, submitted via affidavit that the property had been auctioned to a borrower, payment accepted, and the bank had no intention to take physical possession, stating the tenant's grievance did not survive. The court closed the writ petition and vacated the interim stay.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed; no costs; interim stay order vacated; stay petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.11338 of 2017
and WMP Nos.12279 & 15170 of 2017
Suriyan Benefit Fund (Madras) Limited, (Declared as Nidhi) Reg.No.18-26018, Rep. by its Secretary - Sri.J.Radhakrishnan, No.487, (Old No.435) Mint Street, Chennai - 600 079. ... Petitioner
vs.
M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd., (Formerly Bank of Madura), ICICI Towers, 2nd Floor, East Wing, 24, South Phase, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai - 600 058. ... Respondent
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in IA No.662/2016 in Ia.568/2016 in OA No.994/2001 on the file of the Debt Recovery tribunal No.II, Chennai dt.13/01/2017 which was confirmed by order dated 03.04.2017 made in MA No.16/2017 on the file of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal chennai, quash the same.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the tenant's impleading application survives where the bank has accepted an auction bid and does not intend to take possession of the property.
Whether the interim stay order should be vacated given the bank's alleged withdrawal of grievance in its subsequent affidavit.
Whether the grievance of the tenant w.r.t. physical possession of the premises given the bank has proposed to auction the property and will not take oil the assets.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Suriyan Benefit Fund (Madras) Limited
- respondent
M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd.
Coram
S. MANIKUMAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court