SAI SRUTHI GRANITES Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed against order dated 30.01.2020 in I.A.No.143 of 2020 in S.A.No.223 of 2019, wherein and whereby, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad ( for short 'Tribunal') disposed of the application stating that the auction held on 22.01.2020 and sale notice dated 22.12.2019 shall be subject to the result of S.A.

(2.) Heard Sri T.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank and Sri Mummaneni Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-auction purchaser.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following proper procedure, the 1st respondent Bank has conducted auction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal, without considering the objections of the petitioner, not granted interim order and only observed that the sale notice dated 22.12.2019 and auction held on 22.01.2020 shall be subject to the result of S.A.