Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts

    M/S. Varun Saravanaa Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By Its M.D Mr. M.R Saravanakumar 8/12 Veerabhadrasamy Kovil Street Gugai Salem 636 006 Petitioner v. The Authorised Officer State Bank Of India Samb Branch Chennai.

    Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Prohibition or any other suitable writ be issued to declare the measures taken under SARFAESI and proceedings being conducted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 in Original Application No. 177 of 2010 in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai be declared as acts without jurisdiction and to restore the status-quo ante immediately.

    S. Manikumar, J.:— Writ Petition has been filed, praying for the issuance of a writ of Prohibition or any other suitable writ be issued, to declare the measures taken under SARFAESI and proceedings being conducted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 in Original Application No. 177 of 2010 in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, be declared as acts, without jurisdiction and to restore the status-quo ante immediately.

    2. On 12/12/2016, there was no representation. Hence, directed the Registry to post the matter on 14/12/2016 and hence it is listed today.

    3. Learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, Coimbatore/respondent herein, submitted that after the filing of instant writ petition, a fresh sale notice was issued, on 14/8/2014, bringing the secured properties for auction. On 22/9/2014, auction has been conducted. Auction purchaser has remitted the sale price. Confirmation action of the auction has been done. Sale certificate has been issued.

    4. In the light of the above, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that nothing survives in this writ petition and the petitioner has not made out any case for a writ much less in the nature of writ of prohibition.

    5. Though supporting the prayer sought for, writ petitioner has made averments, this Court is not inclined to advert to the same in issuing a writ of prohibition as prayed for, taking note of the submissions of Mr. R. Imayavaramban, learned counsel for the respondent.

    6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    M/S. Varun Saravanaa... v. The Authorised Offic...
    (Dec 14, 2016)