Dismissed

M. Nageshwar Rao, v. The Recovery Officer

Telangana HC7 Sept 2016WP/36234/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the Recovery Officer's action in returning the claim petition. It directed the petitioner to represent the claim after complying with objections, with the Debts Recovery Tribunal considering and deciding the objections on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to represent claim petition complying with objections; DRT to decide on merits of objections. Writ petition disposed of.

M. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Recovery Officer — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.36234 OF 2015

¶4

DATED:07-09-2016

¶5

Between:

¶6

M. Nageswar Rao … Petitioner
And
The Recovery Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal,
At Hyderabad
and others … Respondents
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Amancharla V. Gopala Rao
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 : -
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 : Mr. Voosa Raghu, for
Smt. G. Sujatha
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3 : -
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDNET NOs.4 to 11: -
: A.G.P. for Home (A.P.)

¶7

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP 36234/2015

¶9

¶10

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶11

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in returning the claim petition filed by the petitioners, by order dt.4.11.2015 in C.P.I.R. No.25 of 2015 in R.P. No.230 of 2003 in O.A. No.719 of 2001 as illegal.

¶12

Though the previous Division Bench has taken a serious view of the conduct of the petitioners and called for an investigation report from the Police, having regard to the fact that the controversy sought to be raised by the petitioners being narrow, we feel that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the aspect raised by the said Division Bench in its order dt.12.4.2016. As no final order adverse to their interests is passed by respondent No.1, the petitioners shall be free to represent the claim petition after complying with the objections. We feel that the objections raised by respondent No.1 on which he has returned the claim petition shall be placed by him before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). On such submissions of papers by respondent No.1, the DRT shall consider the plea of the petitioners and decide on the objections. If the DRT rejects the objections raised by respondent No.1, it shall dispose of the claim petition on merits. Otherwise, it shall pass a detailed order for sustaining the objections.

¶13

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.46625 of

¶15

2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

¶17

C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶18

________________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶19

07-09-2016 bnr

¶20

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP 36234/2015

¶21

M. Nageshwar Rao, v. The Recovery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Nageshwar Rao, v. The Recovery 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

Sri K Narayan Reddy Vs Sri Tatipamula Srinvasulu , Tatepally Srinivas

Akunuri Veera Raghavaiah, Vs The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government of

Nangunoori Vinod Rao, Vs The Authorised Officer

M/s. Velankani Matha Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by its Authorised Officer

Kosaraju Avinash Vs The Secretary Lok Adalat Constituted by Mandal Legal

Nannapaneni Sreeramamurthy, Vs M/S Nava Nirmana Engineering and Infratech (Hyd)