Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/S Aditya Polymers,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 235 OF 2016 29-06-2016 Between:

The A.P State Financial Corporation, Telangana Division, Head Office 5-9-194, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad - 500 001, rep., by its Senior Manager ... Appellant And M/s. Aditya Polymers, Plot No. 166, Road No.24, IDA, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy District, rep., by its sole Propritrix Smt. Kattivarapu Anitha, R/o. 3-4-32, Sai Towers, Narsimha Nagar Colony, Mallapur Main Road opp Aaashitha Hospital Mallapur, Hyderabad, R.R District ... Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT APPEAL No. 235 OF 2016 PC: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard Sri Y. Vivekananda, learned counsel holding for Sri Y.N. Lohitha, advocate on record for the appellant and Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. On 20-04-2016, we passed the following order: "Heard Mr. Y. Vivekananda, learned counsel holding for Mr. Y.N. Lohita, Advocate on record for the appellant and Mr. K.

Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order by way of interim measure.

"1) The appellant is directed to lift seizure of the respondent's property within 24 hours from now.

The respondent is directed to deposit 9.00 lakhs of rupees on or before 27.4.2016, failing which, it is open to the appellant to seize the property afresh.

2) After lifting the seizure, as aforementioned, it is made clear that the respondent shall not have right to take away any articles outside the premises of the factory or to create third party rights in the factory or any part thereof, including, movables. At the time of lifting the seizure, it is open to the appellant to draw a panchanama, take photographs or video record the entire factory, if they so desire." It is needless to mention that subject to the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-writ petitioner shall comply the other directions issued by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Insofar as raising of dispute about the loan account, as per the order passed by learned Single Judge is concerned, that shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Stand over to 28.4.2016."

Again, on 28-04-2016, we passed the following order: "Heard Sri Y. Vivekananda, learned counsel holding for Sri Y.N. Lohitha, advocate on record for the appellant and Sri K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Though the respondent did not deposit Rs.9,00,000/- on or before 27-04-2016, we are informed that she has deposited the said amount thereafter. Sri Gopala Krishna Murthy, on instructions, submits that the respondent shall pay, without prejudice to her rights and contentions, the entire amount that has been mentioned in the demand notice, within a period of five weeks from today. His statement is recorded and accepted.

If the amount, as aforementioned, is not deposited by the respondent with the appellant - Corporation, it would be open to the Corporation to attach the property and take all further steps that they are entitled to take under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, for recovering the due amount. We make it clear that the respondent at this stage is not entitled to raise any dispute regarding the quantum of amount mentioned in the demand notice and it would be open for them to raise such a plea only after deposit of the entire amount, as aforementioned. We also make it clear that if the respondent has paid any amount after service of the demand notice, the same is allowed to be adjusted while complying this order.

Stand over to 08-06-2016."

Thereafter, on several occasions we adjourned this matter at the request of Sri Gopala Krishna Murthy to comply the above order, but till today, respondent No.1 has not complied the directions issued by this Court. Today, Sri Vivekananda submits that he has no objection for disposing of the writ appeal in terms of the interim order dated 28-04-2016. Order accordingly.

In view thereof, the interim order impugned in the present appeal renders ineffective. Writ appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 29-06-2016 ks