Dismissed

M.V.M.C. Krishna Prasad, v. The Andhra Bank

Telangana HC12 Jul 2013WP/15030/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition questioning a sale notice issued under SARBARI Act after observing the petitioner failed to comply with the interim order conditions. Permission was granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue other remedies as provided by law.

M.V.M.C. Krishna Prasad, Vs The Andhra Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA

¶2

and

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶4

Writ Petition No. 15030 of 2013

¶5

DATED: 12..07..2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

MVMC Krishna Prasad, Pandaripuram, Guntur

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

Andhra Bank, Kannavarithota Branch Guntur, rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA and

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No. 15030 of 2013

¶14

O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

¶15

This writ petition is filed questioning the sale notice dated 03.05.2013 issued by the respondent under Sec.13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner on 10.06.2013, this Court granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the amount of Rs.33,68,527/- within a period of two weeks, apart from directing to implead the original borrower also as party respondent to the writ petition.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that the above said interim order has not been complied with by the petitioner till date. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the other remedies in accordance with law.

¶19

Permission is granted.

¶20

Subject to the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed accordingly. No costs.

¶21

N.V. RAMANA, J

¶22

____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶23

Dt. 12..07.2013 Kv

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA and

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶26

Writ Petition No. 15030 of 2013

¶27

(ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

¶28

12..07..2013

¶29

M.V.M.C. Krishna Prasad, v. The Andhra Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V.M.C. Krishna Prasad, v. The Andhra 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

M/s. Ganapati Granites, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary

Ahmed Bin Saleh Sadi, Vs Badarunnisa Begum

Mekala Abhinava Venkata Rao Vs The Collector (Civil Supplies)

K.v.Ajay Kumar S/o. K.Venkataiah, Vs The Govt., of A.P.

G. Chandra Sekhar Gupta Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Balaswamy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh