A writ petition challenging sale and auction notices issued under the SARFAESI Act was dismissed as infructuous because the scheduled auction was not held due to lack of bidders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
AND
HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.9071 of 2017
ORDER: {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan}
In this writ petition, the sale notice dated 11.01.2017 and the auction notice dated 13.02.2017, issued pursuant to the notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, are questioned as being illegal and arbitrary.
Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondentbank, on instructions, would submit that the auction scheduled to be held, pursuant to the auction notice dated 13.02.2017, could not be held because of lack of bidders; and, therefore, the cause in this writ petition does not survive necessitating any further adjudication.
Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the auction scheduled to be held, pursuant to the impugned auction notice, was not held, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
____________________________ (KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J)
05th October, 2018 JSU
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.9071 of 2017
Date: 05.10.2018
JSU
Writ Petitioner
Respondent Bank
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
