Dismissed

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar v. State Bank of India

Telangana HC2 Sept 2016CRP/4230/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed against an interim order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court held that interim orders do not warrant approach to Article 227 jurisdiction and directed the petitioners to contest the matter before the DRT.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed without adjudication; liberty to contest before the DRT.

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.4230 of 2016

¶3

Dated 02^nd September, 2016

¶4

Between :

¶5

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar and another

¶6

And

¶7

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Wing, RACPC SBI Buildings, I Town, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Manager

¶8

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R.Siva Sai Swaroop

¶9

Counsel for the respondent: ---

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

CVNR, J

¶12

2 CVNR, J CRP.No.4230 of 2016

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶14

Civil Revision Petition No.4230 of 2016

¶15

Dated 02^nd August, 2016

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 26.07.2016, in I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2016 in OA.No.775 of 2016, on the file of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam.

¶18

Petitioner No.1 obtained a vehicle loan from the respondent in respect of which petitioner No.2 stood as a guarantor by giving his personal guarantee. As petitioner No.1 has committed default in re-payment of the loan amount, the respondent has filed OA.No.775 of 2016 for recovery of the loan amount under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In the said OA, the respondent has filed the aforementioned two IAs, one for injunction restraining petitioner No.2 from alienating the petition schedule property and another for attachment of the same. By a common order, the DRT has passed an ad interim order directing petitioner No.2 not to dispose of or transfer the petition schedule property till the next date of hearing. The applications were posted to 02.09.2016.

¶19

Having regard to the fact that the impugned order is interim in nature, it is wholly unnecessary for the petitioners to approach this Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners have legally sustainable objections against passing of the impugned order by the DRT, by all means they should have filed a counter affidavit and opposed

CVNR, J

CRP.No.4230 of 2016

further extension of the order. Instead of doing so, the petitioners have needlessly approached this Court.

¶24

In this view of the matter, without adjudicating on the legality or otherwise of the impugned order, the civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to contest the aforementioned two IAs before the DRT.

¶25

As a sequel to dismissal of the CRP, CRP.MP.No.5499 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶27

02^nd September, 2016 VGB

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar v. State 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

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs Kilani Appa Rao

Nambala Venkata Rao Vs Tara Malleswara Rao (died)

Vaddadi Venkata Murali Vs P.Ravi Shankar

B.Anil Kumar Reddy, Vs Mrs.Janaki, I.A.S.

Botta Appa Rao Vs Vadlamuri Shyam Siva Rao

Kuracha Appala Naidu Vs Kuracha Sanyasamma