Dismissed

M/s.Needs Sri Sai Traders Pvt.ltd v. The Authorized officer

Telangana HC8 Jul 2014WP/15674/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition filed to set aside a Debts Recovery Tribunal order directing the Respondent Bank to conditionally confirm an auction until the Petitioner deposited the bid amount. The Court held that the Petitioner, who sought more time to comply with a prior interim order, acted in bad faith to delay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/s.Needs Sri Sai Traders Pvt.ltd Vs The Authorized… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 15674 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

1. This Writ Petition is filed to set aside the docket order, dated 19.05.2014, in S.A.No.384 of 2014 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the Tribunal held as under:

¶5

“However, the Respondent Bank is hereby directed not to confirm the said auction in favour of the highest bidder subject to the condition that the Applicant shall deposit directly with the Respondent Bank the bid amount as quoted by the highest bidder in the auction of the Item No.1 property within 15 days from the date of auction. In the event the Applicant fails to deposit the said amount as stated supra, the Respondent Bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the confirmation of sale of the said property in favour of the highest bidder and however the said auction sale shall be subject to the result of the above SA.”

¶6

2. On 09.06.2014, this Court passed the following interim order: “After hearing both the counsel, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 30-06-2014, and another sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 31-07-2014 and the balance amount along with interest and costs on or before 31-08-2014. In case, there is any default on part of the petitioner in payment of any of the aforementioned amounts, the Bank is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is also made clear that no further extension of time shall be given to the petitioner under any circumstances.”

¶7

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner requests two more weeks’ time to comply with the order, dated 09.06.2014 passed by this Court. In spite of passing the aforesaid conditional orders, it is clear from the conduct of the petitioner that the intention of the

¶8

petitioner appears to be to drag on the proceedings as long as he can. In view of the fact that the above Writ Petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as it is not shown to be passed arbitrarily or against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

----------------------(K.C. BHANU, J) ----------------------(ANIS, J) 08.07.2014 Anr

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

WRIT PETITION No. 15674 OF 2014 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶14

08.07.2014

¶15

Anr

M/s.Needs Sri Sai Traders Pvt.ltd v. The Authorized officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Needs Sri Sai Traders Pvt.ltd v. The Authorized officer

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

M.Seetharama Raju Vs Shiva Kumar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Seshaiah

N. Reddaiah, Y.S.R. District, Vs Special Chief Secretary to Government

K. Chandrakanth Reddy Vs The PRincipal Chief Conservator of Forests

A.Harikrishna Reddy Vs The Government of A.P.

Smt. Cheemala Hazarathamma, Vs The Authorized Officer