Disposed

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries, v. Canara Bank

Telangana HC8 Nov 2012WP/26772/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-disposal of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court held that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, no order was necessary but granted liberty to file for early disposal. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Tribunal seeking early disposal of SA.No.370/2012.

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries, Vs Canara… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.26772 of 2012

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries and another.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

Canara Bank, Hyderabad and others.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. O. MANOHER REDDY

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the Acting Chief Justice)

¶16

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶17

“…this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in SA.No.370/2012, dt.23.08.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently stay the confirmation of sale in respect of the land admeasuring an extent of 1 acre situated in Sy.No.15 of Suraram Village, Quthubulapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the appeal SA.No.370/2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and pass such other or further orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and

¶18

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

2. The only grievance of the petitioners is that S.A.No.370 of 2012 is pending undisposed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶20

3. In view of Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, it is not necessary for us to pass any order in this petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the tribunal seeking early disposal of the pending SA.No.370 of 2012.

¶21

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the Debts Recovery Tribunal below is requested to dispose of S.A.No.370 of 2012, as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶24

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶25

November 8, 2012 DSK

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries, v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Snigdha Plastic Industries, v. Canara Bank

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

Smt. S. Ratnabai, Vs B. Gopal Reddy

Priyadarsini Dalita Samkshema Sangham, Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Vempati Peda Venkateswarlu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Majeti Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o. Siva Vara Koti Prasad Vs The Zonal Manager

Smt.Sodagudi Mary Deevena W/o.John Vara Prasad, Vs The Authorized Officer, Syndicate Bank

P. Anil Kumar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh