The High Court, noticing that the petitioners intended to make the ordered deposit if time was extended by four weeks, declined to interfere with the impugned orders and extended the time accordingly before disposing of the writ petitions.
Time extended by four weeks from today to make the deposit ordered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 7/2/2017
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.Govindaraj
Writ Petition Nos.2878 and 2879 of 2017
Prayer in W.P.No.2878 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 6/1/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A.No.963 of 2015 in M.A.No.34 of 2010 in so far in relating to the direction to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.4,12,000/- within four weeks from the date of order.
Prayer in W.P.No.2879 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 6/1/2017 passed by the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A.No.926 of 2015 in M.A.No.97 of 2010 in so far in relating to the direction to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- within four weeks from the date of order.
For petitioners ... Mr.G.Ethirajulu
C O M M O N O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)
Though Mr.Sundararajan, Proprietor of M/s. Sri Ambigai Silks, Kancheepuram/writ petitioners, assailed the correctness of the orders made in M.A.Nos.34 and 97 of 2010, after making submissions, Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the deposit, as ordered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, would be made, if time is extended by four weeks from today.
2. Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.
3. Having regard to the above, there is no need to delve into the merits of challenge made in W.P.Nos.2878 and 2879 of 2017. While declining to interfere with the orders impugned and taking note of the submissions stated supra, time is extended by four weeks from today, to make the deposit, as ordered by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in the above said proceedings.
Writ Petition Nos.2878 and 2879 of 2017
NR(CO) sp/20/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal requiring deposit of.money within four weeks.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Sundararajan
S.Kanyakumari
M/s. South Indian Bank Limited
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
S.Manikumar
M.Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
