M/S. Aditya Polimers v. The Andhra Pradesh State,Financial Corporation
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Writ Petition No.39814 of 2012 Between:
M/s.Aditya Polimers rep. by its Proprietor K.Anitha ... Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 19-08-2015 Submitted for Approval:
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39814 of 2012 Dated 19.08.2015
Between:
M/s.Aditya Polimers rep. by its Proprietor K.Anitha ... Petitioner and The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for the respondents: Mr.Y.N.Vivekananda for Mr.Y.N.Lohitha The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of machinery and material vide letter bearing No.AFC/RRE/MBN/2012-13/856, dated 01-12-2012, as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner.
Mr.Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Counsel representing Mr.Y.N.Lohitha, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Limited, submitted that this Court by Order, dated 27-12-2012, granted stay of sale of the seized machinery subject to the petitioner
depositing a sum of Rs.20 lakhs within two weeks therefrom; that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal and withdrawn the same; and that the petitioner has failed to comply with the said interim order.
He has further submitted that the petitioner has, admittedly, failed to repay the loan amount besides secretly selling away a part of the machinery.
In the light of the above facts, which remain uncontroverted due to the absence of the Counsel for the petitioner, more so, having regard to the failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditional interim order of this Court, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petiton, interim order, dated 27-12-2012, is vacated and WPMP.Nos.50570 and 50571 of 2012 are disposed of as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 19th August, 2015 LUR