Disposed

M/s. Impact Metals Ltd., v. The Reserve Bank of India

Telangana HC28 Jan 2014WP/1949/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashment of a DT order dismissing an amendment application. The Court found no merit but directed the Tribunal to consider the petitioner's pendency payments during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tribunal below to consider the payments made by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.

M/s. Impact Metals Ltd., Vs The Reserve Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.1949 OF 2014

¶4

Date: 28.01.2014

¶5

Between: M/s. Impact Metals Ltd. A-24, Road No.6, IDA Gandhi Nagar Hyderabad – 500 037 Rep. by its Executive Director Sri G.Venkat Rao

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Reserve Bank of India Rep. by its General Manager Saifabad Hyderabad and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.1949 OF 2014

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the record relating to the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 21.01.2014 in I.A.No.2818 of 2013 in S.A.No.481 of 2012 and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 19 (25) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.S.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondentBank.

¶15

By the order under challenge, the petitioner’s application for amendment of S.A.No.481 of 2012 for the purpose of incorporating the subsequent events, particularly, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.394 of 2013, was dismissed by the Tribunal.

¶16

Though the impugned order is sought to be assailed on various grounds, the sum and substance of the petitioner’s grievance appears to be that the impugned order was passed without taking notice of the fact that the petitioner had made substantial payments during the pendency of S.A.No.481/2012.

¶17

We do not find any substance in the said contention. As rightly held by the Tribunal, it is not necessary to seek an amendment to the appeal for the purpose of bringing on record the payments stated to have been made by the petitioner pending the appeal. Hence, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision.

¶18

Having regard to the fact that the payments if any made by the petitioner are a matter of record, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the Tribunal below while hearing the appeal shall take into consideration the payments stated to have been made by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.

¶19

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶20

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶21

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶22

Date: 28.01.2014 Mva

M/s. Impact Metals Ltd., v. The Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Impact Metals Ltd., v. The Reserve Bank of India

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/s. Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct) -v

M/s. Kamadhenu and Company, Vs State Bank of India, Hi-Tech City Branch (4187)

Simhadri Saiji Rao Vs Indian Bank

Smt. Jaya Vindhyala Vs The Authorized Officer

Smt. a. Renuka, Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad

M.a.Jaganmohan Reddy, S/o.Venkatakrishna Reddy Vs The Union of India., rep. by its Secretary