G.Kuppan v. The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III Chennai 600 002.2. Sundaram BNP
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.12.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYWrit Petition No.24765 of 2009G.Kuppan ..Petitioner Vs.
The Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal III Chennai 600 002.
Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. rep. by its Authorised Officer No.46, Whites Road Chennai 600 014. ..Respondents-----Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor a writ of Mandamus for the relief as stated therein.-----For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu-----
Operative part
O R D E R(Made by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.)The writ petition has been preferred for a direction on thefirst respondent to dispose of the Securitisation Appeal No.134 of2009 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennaiexpeditiously.2. As the matter relates to disposal of the SecuritisationAppal filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and pending beforethe Debt Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai, we allow the petitioner tomove before the said Tribunal for disposal of the appeal. TheTribunal is expected to decide the appeal on merit, after notice tothe parties, without granting unnecessary adjournment, preferablywithin three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copyof this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. kplSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarToThe Presiding OfficerDebts Recovery Tribunal IIIChennai 600 002.+ 1 cc to Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate SR No.66454W.P.No.24765 of 2009.BS(CO)SR/9.12.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.