M/S Canara Bank v. M/S Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.32316 of 2023 PROCEEDING SHEET S.

No.

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE NOTE 2.

13.12.2023 CJ & JAK, J I.A.No.1 of 2023 (review petition) Mr. P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

Mr. Manav Gecil Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard on I.A.No.1 of 2023, an application seeking review of the order dated 23.11.2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.32316 of 2023.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the validity of the order dated 21.11.2023, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by which I.A.No.3641 of 2023, filed by the respondents for reopening the stay petition, has been allowed without assigning any reasons.

However, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide I.A.No.3278 of 2023, an application for stay, in a time bound manner. Thereupon, this Court passed the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that order of status quo has been granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 20.10.2023 which has been extended from time to time. He therefore submits that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide I.A.No.3278 of 2023, an application for stay, in a time bound manner.

Taking into account the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide the application for stay with a speaking order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

The application for review has been filed on the ground that the time for deciding I.A.No.3278 of 2023 be extended by four weeks.

In our considered opinion, the order passed by us neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. However, the word 'petitioner' in the fourth line of para 5 of the order dated 23.11.2023 shall stand substituted by the word

'parties'.

This order shall be read in continuation with the order dated 23.11.2023, passed in W.P.No.32316 of 2023.

Accordingly, the interlocutory application is disposed of.

_________ CJ (AAJ) _________ JAK, J LUR