SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 386

M.JAICHANDREN, K.KALYANASUNDARAM
M. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Egmore – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:N. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R3, R4, Dr. T. Ramasamy, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank had submitted that an e-auction was scheduled to be held, on 19.2.2014. However, there were no bidders in the said e-auction. Therefore, no e-auction had taken place. In such circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not refuted the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bank that no e-auction had taken place, on 19.2.2014, as scheduled, the writ petition has become infructuous. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top