Telangana High Court
WP/39501/2012 of Bhuvaneswari Agri Processing AND Marketing Pvt. Limited, Vs Union Of India , on 31 December 2012
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.39501 OF 2012 Dt: 31-12-2012. Between: BHUVANESWARI AGRI PROCESSING AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED SY.NO.92-3, TATAPUDI VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR REP. BY ITS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.39501 OF 2012
Dt: 31-12-2012.
Between:
BHUVANESWARI AGRI PROCESSINGAND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITEDSY.NO.92-3, TATAPUDI VILLAGE,CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL,GUNTURREP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORE.PRASADA RAOAND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS
AND
UNION OF INDIAREP. BY ITS SECRETARYMINISTRY OF FINANCENEW DELHIAND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSEANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.39501 OF 2012
ORDER: (Per THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in notconsidering the offer for One Time Settlement (OTS) made by the petitionerand also proposal to sell agricultural produce etc., at appropriate time asillegal and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondentauthorities to formulate and finalize the OTS regarding the loan accounts ofthe petitioner after setting aside the notice issued under SARFAESI Act on16.10.2012.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Bank, we are of the opinion that thematter may be decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Hence, wepermit the petitioner to apply before the DRT for redressal of its grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed permitting the petitioner toapply before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. No costs.
Dt: 31-12-2012.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, HCJ )
TNB
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J )