9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ Heard learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel representing the respondent/Bank. 2. The appellants approached learned Single Judge aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P9 orders of attachment passed by the Recovery Officer. According to appellants, attachment was a violation of directions issued at Ext.P2 order. Therefore, Exts.P8 and P9 deserves to be quashed. Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk, the controversy raised is entirely different from the dispute now raised by the appellants. Hence question of tribunal deciding a matter ceased by this Court in W.P.C.No.4796/2008 would not arise. 5. We have gone through the directions at Ext.P1 dated 23/01/2012 and Ext.P2 in R.P.No.250/2012. So far as Ext.P1 direction is concerned, this writ petition is at the instance of the respondent/Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lter raised such issue. Then the learned Single Judge said, while complying with the directions of order dated 23/01/2012, prior to taking further action, the liability that is actually due has to be re-determined as mentioned in the order dated 23/01/2012. The directions at Exts.P1 and P2 given by the learned Single Judge are altogether different on comparison with present agitation raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negotiation. So far as the present attachment by the recovery officer at the instance of the respondent/Bank for realising the dues of the respondent/Bank he proceeded to allow the attachment of other properties which were not secured on account of genuine grounds raised by the respondent/Bank. This came to be challenged. As already stated, the present controversy has nothing to do with the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
