Single Judge dismissed a writ petition seeking to restrain the first respondent from confirming an auction and issuing a sale certificate, as the prayer had become infructuous due to no auction being held on the stated date.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.No.29934 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.25892 of 2016
R. Thilagam
.. Petitioner
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the first respondent from confirming the auction held on 12/8/2016 and issuing sale certificate pursuant to the auction sale notice published in Financial Express dated 4/7/2016 in respect of residential property comprised in Old TS No.3/3B1, D.No.24A Ward B, Block 7 Kannan Kurichi Main Road, Hasthampatti, Salem 7.
For petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For respondents : Mr.K.Magesh (for R1)
2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J. )
Borrower has sought for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, Salem, the first respondent from confirming the auction held on 12/8/2016 and issuing sale certificate pursuant to the auction sale notice published in Financial Express dated 4/7/2016, in respect of residential property comprised in Old TS No.3/3B1, D.No.24A Ward B, Block 7 Kannan Kurichi Main Road, Hasthampatti, Salem.
2. While ordering notice to the respondents returnable in eight weeks, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.08.2016, has granted stay of further proceedings subject to condition, the petitioner deposits a sum Rs.21 Lakhs within a period of eight weeks before the first respondent.
3. On this day, when the matter is listed for further hearing, Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the borrower submitted that the conditional order dated 29.08.2016, has been complied with. He further submitted that the deposit made, be appropriated towards the loan account.
3
4. Mr.K.Magesh, learned counsel for the respondent bank
acknowledged the said submission. He further submitted that the prayer sought for in the instant writ petition has become infructuous, as no auction was held on 12.08.2016.
5. Placing on record the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, we are of the view that there is no need to delve into the contentious issues in the instant writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.K., J.] [M.G.R., J.] 08.02.2017
Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes ars
To
Branch Manager-cum-Authorised Officer, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd (Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Sri Lakshmi Complex, I Floor, 4/22 Omalur Main Road Swarnapuri, Salem 4.
4
S. MANIKUMAR, J. AND M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
ars
W.P.No.29934 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.25892 of 2016
08.02.2017
R. Thilagam
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd
M/s. Arjuna Rock Drills
M. Ramasamy
R.T.Sathish
S. Manikumar
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
