Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.P.State Financial Corp. vs M/S Bharat Tubes & Tins Printers . on 3 January, 2014
\212
ITEM NO.43 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).24668/2009
(From the judgement and order dated 17/04/2009 in CCCA No. 301/2007 of The
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD)
A.P.STATE FINANCIAL CORP. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S BHARAT TUBES & TINS PRINTERS & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 03/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv.
For RR 1 Ms. T.Anamika, Adv.
For RR 5 Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv.
Mr. A.V. Rangam, Adv.
For RR 3 Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao ,Adv
Ms. Y. Vismai rao, Adv.
Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that as there was no valid and enforceable mortgage in favour of the petitioner, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, the plaintiff would be entitled for declaration that the mortgage is invalid and unenforceable. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has also decreed the suit of the plaintiff for injunction.
It is not disputed that the loan for which the aforesaid mortgage was created has been repaid by M/s. Larsvin Appliances Private Limited, the purchaser of the industry from the loanee which had mortgaged the property in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner does not want to proceed any further in respect of the property alleged to have been mortgaged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the question as to whether the mortgage was a valid or enforceable mortgage is yet to be decided by this Court in another case.
|Considering the aforesaid facts, we dispose of this Special Leave Petition by | |ordering that the petitioner will not proceed against the said property to have| |been mortgaged in this case and leave the question as to whether the alleged | |mortgage was valid and enforceable mortgage open to be decided by this Court in| |an appropriate case. | |The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. | | | |[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] | |COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |