Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
T.M. Food Processing Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the bank's refusal to refund deposit (Para 1) |
| 2. details of the loan and security arrangement (Para 3) |
| 3. bank's argument regarding counterclaims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observation on petitioner's liability (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. analysis of unjust enrichment principles (Para 8) |
| 6. entitlement to refund and interest (Para 9) |
| 7. final ruling and order for refund (Para 10) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not refunding a sum of Rs.1 crore, deposited by the petitioner, in compliance with the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal in securitization application No.51 of 2016 and in writ petition No.4093 of 2019 on the file of this Court, despite disposal of the O.A.No.299 of 2012 filed by the 2nd respondent-Bank, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently sought direction to respondent-Bank to refund the said sum of Rs.1 crore to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-State Bank of India. None appeared for respondent No.1.
3. A company by name M/s. East India Surimi Company Private Limite
The court upheld the principle of unjust enrichment, ordering the Bank to refund the petitioner Rs.1 crore as he had no liability for the loan repayment, thus prohibiting the Bank from withholding th....
The amount deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition with a view of show his bonafide to enter into a settlement was required to be returned to the borrower in the event of....
A petitioner must comply with interim orders to be eligible for relief; failing to do so necessitates pursuing remedies in designated tribunals.
The court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to reasonable interest over the deposited amount and considered the lack of fault in the non-execution of the sale certificate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the confirmation of sale by the secured creditor is essential, and in the absence of such confirmation, no default can be attributed to the bi....
Tenant - Mortgage - There is no doubt that a tenant or an occupant at a building, whose commencement of continuous occupation is anterior to creation of a mortgage, may not be thrown out of possessio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the bank's confirmation of the sale to the petitioner and notice of successfu....
The court upheld the petitioner's commitment to deposit a substantial amount, establishing conditions for the abeyance of recovery proceedings by the bank.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
