Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Srinija Parenterals vs Union Bank Of India

High Court Of Telangana|29 April, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 14199 of 2014 Dated: 29.04.2014 Between:
M/s.Srinija Parenterals, Rep. by its Proprietrix Smt. Kamana Neeraja And Union Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Vijayawada and four others.
…..Petitioner ....Respondents The Court made the following :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No. 14199 of 2014 ORDER : (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking to call for records relating to and in connection with the order dated 24.03.2014 passed in S.A.No.240 of 2013 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and consequently quash the same including the Tender-cum-Auction Notice dated 27.09.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm commenced production in its full swing and if the order of dispossession is given effect to the very purport of establishment of the unit would be defeated and consequently, the petitioner will be left with no legal remedy to challenge the action of the respondent-Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of
[1]
Maharastra , wherein it was held that the petitioner has the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the proceedings initiated under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
4. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner does have a legal remedy of filing an appeal, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the legal remedy of filing an appeal provided under the SARFAESI Act. However, the respondent-bank is restrained from taking possession of the subject property, for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 29th April 2014.
Note:
Issue C.C. in three days.
(B/o.) mar
[1] 2011(2) SCC 782
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S Srinija Parenterals vs Union Bank Of India

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
29 April, 2014
Judges
  • Ashutosh Mohunta
  • M Satyanarayana Murthy