M/S Vijaya Bank, vs A.P.Industrial Infrastructure ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1463 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.1178 of 2008

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard       Ms.     Nousheen,         learned         counsel   for   the

appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2. Appellant before us is M/s. Vijaya Bank, Asset

Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated

10.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of the writ petition filed by the appellant.

4. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking

the following relief:

a) To declare proceedings bearing Lr.No.50/A/79, 3148 dated 08.10.2004 issued by the 1st respondent cancelling the allotment of the land admeasuring 12,733.10 sq.yards bearing Plot Nos.B-14, 23, 24, 26 and D-13 situated at Industrial Estate Moula-Ali,

Hyderabad, in favour of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.

b) Consequently direct the 1st respondent corporation to execute the agreement, sale deed in favour of 2nd respondent company in respect of the above land and to hand over the same to the petitioner bank upon payment of any dues payable on account of 2nd respondent company.

5. The writ petition was contested by respondent No.1

by filing counter affidavit.

6. Appellant did not file any reply affidavit to the

counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1.

7. Without entering into the factual aspect, we find that

learned Single Judge had noticed that appellant had

already obtained two recovery certificates against

respondents No.2 and 3 and that execution proceedings

were pending before the recovery officer of the Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. All the questions raised in

the writ petition were found to be already raised before the

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was

held to be misconceived and disposed of accordingly vide

the order dated 10.03.2006.

8. On 19.10.2022, we had granted two weeks time to

learned counsel for the appellant to obtain instructions

from her client as to the outcome of the execution

proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Thereafter, on 01.02.2023 she submitted that some more

time would be required to ascertain whether the dues of

the appellant have been cleared by the debtor or not and if

the dues have been cleared, there would be no cause to

pursue the matter.

9. In the hearing today, learned counsel for the

appellant has placed before us notice of demand issued to

the certificate debtors in R.P.No.84 of 2004 in O.A.No.530

of 2001 dated 18.03.2013. We are certain much

proceedings had taken place thereafter but it appears

appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

10. In the above circumstances, we feel that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing with the present

proceeding.

11. In any case, we do not find any error or infirmity in

the view taken by the learned Single Judge to prolong the

present appeal proceedings.

12. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 29.03.2023 vs