Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Between: 1 The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Zonal Office South, 70/1, Mission Road, Dr.Brownamma Tower, Bangalore. 2 The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., Branch Office, at J.N.Road, Abids, Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Head MR.Khurshid Ahmed S/o.Peer Mohd. Ali. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri Bansilal Lohiya S/o.Bodulalji Lohiya R/o.H.No.18-4-82, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. Lohiya Vanaspathi Limited, rep. by its Managing Director Radheshyam Lohiya S/o.Ramswaroop Lohiya, 7-4-96/A, Gagan Pahad, Ranga REddy District. 3 Sri Ramswaroop Lohiya S/o.Bodulalji Lohiya, R/o.H.No.18-4-82, Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the non-disposal of the S.A. No.151 of 2007 pending on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and consequently direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, to dispose of the S.A.No.151 of 2007 without any further delay and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Bank seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the non-disposal of S.A.No.151 of 2007 pending on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of the S.A.No.151 of 2007. Despite notice being served on the respondent there is no representation on behalf of the respondent either in person or through a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank. The grievance of the petitioner-Bank is that the application seeking vacation of the interim stay granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad on the appeal filed by the respondent under section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short Act) challenging the proceedings issued under section 13(4) of the Act is not being taken up despite repeated requests. Indisputably the vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. I hope and trust the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad would not be failing in its duty in taking up the vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 7th July, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to
2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.9124 OF 2008 7-7-2008.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; SARFAESI Act, 2002; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.