Dismissed

T.N.Nitiyananda Rahavan v. Presiding Officer

Madras HC17 Jul 2017WP/7697/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of a miscellaneous application returned due to defects. The court dismissed the petition after the counsel agreed to have the matter re-presented to the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order dated 3/4/2017 vacated; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

T.N.Nitiyananda Rahavan Vs Presiding Officer — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17/7/2017

¶3

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR

¶4

and The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.7697 of 2017

¶6

T.N.Nitiyananda Rahavan ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Anna Salai Chennai.

¶9

The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank Ekkattuthangal Chennai. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to number M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017 in S.A.274/2015 on the file of the first respondent and dispose it off, according to law.

¶11

For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Manikandan for Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondent ... Mr.Ashok Rajan for Mr.F.B.Benjamin George for R.2 - - - - - -

¶12

Borrower has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai, to number M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chennai, has returned M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017, as hereunder:-

¶15

“Fresh SA to be filed against fresh cause of action.

¶16

May be returned granting three weeks time.

¶17

Counsel has represently the MA, SA is challenging the possession notice that SA is orders respected. But the counsel has reserved. But counsel has represented the MA for challenging the e-auction proposed to be held on 3/4/2017. Fresh IA to be filed against fresh cause of action.

¶18

When Registry of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai, has returned M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017, it is the duty of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, to represent it, after complying with the defects pointed out and in case, where there is no requirement to rectify, request should have been made, to the Registry to post M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017, before the Presiding Officer, for maintainability.

¶19

On this day, when the instant writ petition, came up for further hearing, Mr.K.Manikandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that returned M.A.SR.No.2109 of 2017 has been re-presented, to the Registry of the Debts Recovery Tribunal – III, Chennai. Liberty is given to the petitioner, to process the same in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the prayer sought for cannot be issued.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, already granted, on 3/4/2017, is vacated. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

mvs.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

¶27

The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal - III Anna Salai Chennai.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.Subramani,Advocate sr.49941

¶29

+1cc to Mr.Banjamin George,Advocate sr.49951

¶30

W.P.No.7697 of 2017
mg(co)
ss(2/8/2017)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.N.Nitiyananda Rahavan v. Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Nitiyananda Rahavan v. Presiding Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Jyothi Laboratories Ltd., Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Lalitha Rani, Vs The General Manager

Mrs.Krishnaveni Vs The Authorized Officer

The Commisisoner of Customs Vs Shri Loon Karan Kawad

P.John Joseph Vs The Joint Commissioner of

Mak Control &Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commssioner of Cenral