Dismissed

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Telangana HC7 Sept 2012WP/27745/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition by Gulzarilal Kedia seeking a stay on the physical eviction of his property by State Bank of Hyderabad. Finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate bonafides by complying with the Debts Recovery Tribunal's recovery order for nine months, the Court refused to grant relief.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed on the ground that the petitioner lacked bonafides due to default in complying with the Tribunal's order.

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.27745 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 07-09-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

SRI.GULZARILAL KEDIA .. PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER MAHABUBGUNJ BRANCH, SIDDAMBER BAZAR, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.27745 OF 2012

¶10

ORDER: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to take physical possession of the petitioner’s residential property bearing No.5-9-30/1/4/3 admeasuring 800.75 square yards situated at Road No.5, Basheerbagh Palace Colony, Hyderabad without I.A.No.1056 of 2012 in S.A.No.178 of 2011 being adjudicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶12

It appears that already an order has been passed on 6.1.2012 in S.A.No.178 of 2011 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 crores within four weeks from that date directly to the respondent-bank. It further directed that out of the said amount of Rs.2.00 crores, Rs.1.00 crore is to be paid on or before 20.01.2012. It has also been directed that in case of default of payment, as directed, the respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶13

It appears from the record that none of the directions which have been given by the Tribunal have been complied with by the petitioner. Now, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition before us redressing some relief and prayed that Rs.25.00 lakhs would be deposited during the course of the day and the balance amount will be paid later on.

¶14

Nine months have almost lapsed in these proceedings to get Rs.25.00 lakhs, which has been brought before the Court today to show their

¶15

bonafides. After looking at the facts of this case, we are sure that the petitioner has no bonafides in the matter to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are unable to pass any order in this writ petition.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶18

Dt: 07-09-2012.

¶19

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )

¶20

TNB

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gulzarilal Kedia, v. The State Bank of Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.G.Somi Reddy Vs The Commissioner Appeals

The District Collector, Vs Gorantla Butchi Naidu

Boya Lachamma Vs The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

Naidu Cultural Club Vs The Dy. I.G. of Police

Munchipilli Bangaramma Vs The District Collector

Baba Industries, Vs The Deputy General Manager