Allowed

Mobd. Omer v. Indian Overseas Bank

Telangana HC9 Feb 2021WP/33187/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an interim order in a Debt Recovery Tribunal case that effectively granted the main relief. The court set aside the order as it could not grant main relief at an interlocutory stage and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The impugned interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal directing deposit of sale consideration was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

Mobd. Omer Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST

¶4

- ;; " ^' ^ " "^{ji*i[:f f,",t?:,} ::;^

¶5

"ffi,"JI'ItEiiJyX,'JI,"Lf,F,'SHA*"

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY THE HoN,BLE o,..Iu#rcDe SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶8

Betwe en:

¶9

wRt TP ETIT ION N O: 33't 87 oF2016

¶10

Hs:t-STtid^{fi!;!l[,YE'g,^rlr3hi,..Ased about 61 vearsocc} Business, 2, erl,ln'sll,::ll:,',:{t'y:ls;"%1{',ffi",t:HJi::{}l,ii:^jdt.: : B usiness,

¶11

AND

¶12

PETITIONERS

¶13

lli;:1,?::'::a; B8!n Hvderabad Main Branch, 104/1, Bank street, Kori, Z. ), S3lq$??:ll:;y1i;d+.a1:qi?#i#.1#,41it1iiiti:::::: saz rv^p r t zr Ai t . vrrn n,-ip, ilclnIV]kl i,, ns n,t. Sa roornasa r

¶14

5lft B },?il,r,

¶15

4 p.u:rnqssr x.to.17-2-619. A;}:l:I^ri:lrE"d{y..^S/o Saidabad.^A.Narasimha Hvderar,r.r,^{Reddy. '} Aged """ 'about 47 years, occ :

¶16

5 rvr.uucnr Reddy,, S/o.M.Batryg1tl|9OOV, Ag;d about 45 years, Occ : Business. 6 IVohd. R/o.H.No.1-72, Asif,, S/o.Mohd. Peniaria Srrte.rn'an, Viil2gs. (611-rLry'frrfriOuf As"a';i;;;i3'o , [,]#rtoobnaqar y,iuiilo.. : Asriculture.District. R/o. H. No 6- 1 1, Mohd. Nasar t v^), k5n jur.Iuiu'r,iJ,io."jj, i. n. oirtri.t.

¶17

osman Shareef.. S/o.Daw"ooci dlrE;i;;; ;il;iil y"ur., occ : Business, R/o.1 7-5-540. Shareef Tower., Oinlulpuii,'H,;O.,1lUr,i

¶18

B. Debt Recoverv Tribunar s,oeirioro sifitil;]ir:;;;Tt"mprex, Abid s, Hydera bad Rep. by its Registrar

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more so, a writ in the nature of mandamus, by decraring .1 the proceedings of the 8th respondent in LA.No,2.1 s8l2o16 in s.A.No.263/20.1 , dated.01.09.2016, as arbitrary, illegal, perverse, unlawful, capricious and contrary to law and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequentially, to set aside the same, by declaring the same as null and void and non est in law

¶21

WPMP. NO: 41025 OF 2016

¶22

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavtt filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings in S.A.No.26312016 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad during the pendency of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI c. VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶24

Counsel for Respondent no. 1: SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶25

Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 6: SRI CHETLURI SRINIVAS

¶26

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶27

HON,BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A'RAJASHEKERREDDY} AND HON'BLE^{DR.JUSTICESHAMEEMAKTHER}

¶28

Writ Petit ion^{No.33187of2U^16}

¶29

ORDER: lper^{Hon'bl e Sri Justic?'} A,RA .S betrer,EcddS)

¶30

This wri1.^{petitionis filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus} by declaring^{the proceedings of the 8th respondent-DebtRecovery} Tribunal,^{Hyderabad,in IA No'2158of 2016 in SA No'263 of 2011'} dated 01-09^{-2016, as being arbitrary,il1ega1 and Contraryto law} and opposed^{to principlesof naturaljustice and consequentlyto set} aside the same^{to meet the ends of jr-rstice'}

¶31

The above^{application r'l'as mo''rcclby the respondentsin the} SA, who are^{agreement holders of the propertywhich is the subject} of dispute, the^{Tribunalpassed the interim order which is in the} nature of allowing^{the main relief. The operativeportion of the} impugned order reads^{as follows:-}

¶32

"IntLrcabouecircumstances,theapplicantisdirectedtodepositthe entire sale consirieration^{utithin a penod of} four^{weeks hereof'Upon receipt} of the same, the Bank^{shalt refund the depositkept tuith them by the} auction purchaser along uith^interest @^{9o/o p.a. since the amount is kept} in FD, if an shortfatl in^{the interest,the same be paid bg the applicant} upon receiuinq intimation from the bank.^{l'hereafter,the bank shall} release the title of the propertA upon^{properrecetpt} in fauour^{of the} petitioners/ respondents nos.2 to 6, . ."

¶33

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties. We 1r:rvc: gone through tl-re irnpLlgned order, and it has the eflect of allou,ing the main casc, such relief cannot be granted at the interlocutory stage. Learnecl counsei orr both sides could not dispute this fact seriouslv.

¶34

¶35

In the circumstances, the impugned order is set^{asideand the} writ petition is allowed. Inasmuch as the matter is of the^{year 20 I 1,} the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the main SA in^accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is needless observe ail contentions are kept open for the parties to be urged before^the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of. There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶36

That Rule Nisi^{has beenmade absolute as above'}

¶37

¶38

Witness the^{Hon'bleTHE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI' on this Tuesday' the} Ninth day of February,^{Two Thousand and TwentyOne'}

¶39

¶40

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTR

¶41

,TRUE COPY// \

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To, 1 The lndian Overseas^{Bank, Hyderabad MainBranch' 104/1'Bankstreet' Koti'} Hvderabad^{- 500 095}

¶44

2 iil" n""t]ruibett^{RecoueryTribunal,, Hyderabad 5th Floor' Triveni complex'} Abids, tivderabad. 3. ilii"tc i" sl c^{Vasantha Ravudu Advocate tol-UCl-} 4. 5;; dd io 5ii^{E nrioi" Ir/ohan Rao Advocate-[-oP^UC]} 5. 6;; 6c ii 5ri^{o.r"irrriSreenrvas,Advocate(oPUC)} 6. Two CD CoPies

IVBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910212021

1 trE ETa r{:
-./..
oo) 23 rEB 2021
.-.^
/
',,/l
--,

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.33187 of 2016

¶51

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

O 7p

Mobd. Omer v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mobd. Omer v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Elite Security Force Limited, And 2 Others Vs Union of India, And 3 Others

Sri K Pavan Kumar Vs Assets Reconstruction company India Ltd. and another

M/s. Balaji Cotgin Industries Vs Bank of India

M/s Samriddhi Petro Products Vs The South Indian Bank Ltd.

A. Laxman Rao Vs Boorla Amarnath and 8 Others

Akku Laxman Rao Vs Idpl Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited.