9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned judgment and orders at Exts.P1 and P2 is one and the same - The directions at Exts.P1 and P2 given by the learned Single Judge are altogether different on comparison with present agitation raised by the appellants. Approaching the concerned authority seeking permission to sell one item of the property or other item as well and depending upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Learned Single Judge, taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised 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. The grievance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. 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 appellants. 7. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 decision in the earlier o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
