Dismissed

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer v. Mr.v.N.Subhash Chandra Bose

Telangana HC18 Apr 2009WP/24743/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Syndicate Bank challenging an interim stay order by the DRA Tribunal in a第二季 appeal. Petitioner approached High Court for writ of certiorari to quash the order. Petitioner bank appreciating no lack of merit in the same. Petition, dismissed for no merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer Vs… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 24743 of 2007

¶6

Between:

¶7

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer Pioneer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Mr.V.N.Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o.V.V.Mohan Rao R/o.Flat No.G-1, 496/2RT, Pooja Residency Andhra Bnak lane, SR nagar, Hyderabad 2 M/s. Roopa Informatices, rep.by its Executive Director K.L.V.S.Lakshmi, 107, Nilagiri Block,Aditya Enclave Ameerpet,Hyderabad 3 The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai rep.by its Chair person

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari after calling for the records order passed by the 3rd respondent in IA.No.345/2007 in SA.No.132/2006 dated 25.4.2007 and quash or set aside the order.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.KRISHNAM RAJU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN)

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the Syndicate Bank, respondent in S.A.No.132 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the interim order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in I.A.No.345 of 2007 in IN(SARFAESI)-138 of 2007. By the said order the Appellate Tribunal took note of the fact that the respondents’ appeal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the possession notice issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, was pending and the Appellate Tribunal also observed that the respondents herein had complied with the interim order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Appellate Tribunal observed that there was no reason for the Debt Recovery Tribunal to vacate the said order at that stage. Stating so, the Appellate Tribunal directed the respondents to deposit the amount ordered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal with the respondent bank on or before 31.5.2007 and disposed of the appeal. The interim order

¶19

granted by the Appellate Tribunal was directed to be continued till the disposal of the appeal, S.A.No.132 of 2006 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. Against this order, the petitioner bank approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

¶20

In spite of notice being ordered by this Court, respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to put in an appearance. In view of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal passed the order as long back as on 25.4.2007 directing that the stay shall continue pending disposal of S.A.No.132 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same at this stage. It is relevant to note that it is open for the bank to work out its rights and remedies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in the said S.A.No.132 of 2006.

¶21

We do not see any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18.4.2009 kpr

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer v. Mr.v.N.Subhash Chandra Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Authorised officer v. Mr.v.N.Subhash Chandra Bose

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

KOmmi Lakshmaiah Naidu Vs The Election Commission of India., rep.by its Secretary

The Management of Blue Star Limited Vs v.Mallikarjuna Rao

G.Nalini Vs The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Secunderabad

Krishna Bhoopal Vs District Consumer Forum

Achanta Ramanadham (Died) Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

M/s. K. Raheja It Park (Hyderabad) Priviate Limited, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct)