2015 (3) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vited any affidavit in the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Bank submits that, the prayer of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is not for refund of purchase price along with interest. The writ petitioners are seeking possession of the immovable property concerned. The possession of the immovable property could not be made over to the purchaser due to various orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He submits that, by an order dated July 11, 2014, the Court directed disposal of a representation made by the writ petitioners. The representation of the writ petitioners was considered and was disposed of by an order dated August 20, 2014. Learned Counsel for the respondents refers to a tripartite meeting held among the writ ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....perty put up for sale. The writ petitioners did not receive actual physical possession of the same. This is an admitted position. It is the obligation of the respondent authorities to put the writ petitioners in possession of such immovable property. The writ petitioners had made several representations to the respondent authorities for possession of the immovable property. The writ petitioners not being satisfied with the actions taken by the respondent authorities in this regard moved before this Hon'ble Court by way of WP No. 602 of 2014. By an order dated July 11, 2014, such writ petition was disposed of by directing the authorised officer of the respondent no.1 to consider the grievances of the writ petitioners as contained in the not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directed to continue till the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing the interim order of status quo was not extended. An order dated July 3, 2012 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been placed which shows that, the interim order granted on February 6, 2012, was extended till the next date of hearing. Subsequent orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not extend the interim order initially granted. As the records placed before me stands, there is no subsisting interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in respect of the property concerned. No other order of any of the Authority has been placed before me to show that, there is any impediment on the bank to part with the purchase price together with reasonable interest t....