Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr.Usha Muthukrishnan v. IDBI Bank - WA.No.842 of 2004 [2007] RD-TN 1161 (28 March 2007)


Dated:- 28.03.2007


The Honble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM


The Honble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN

Writ Appeal No.842 of 2004


WAMP.No.1524 of 2004

1.Dr.Usha Muthukrishnan


3.M/s Hospital Equipment Systems,

rep. by Dr.B.P.Muthukrishnan,

Managing Partner,

82/1-A, Muttukadu Road,

Neelangarai, Chennai-600 041. .. Appellants Vs.

1.IDBI Bank Ltd.,

37, C.P.Ramaswamy Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018.

2.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,


3.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Tribunal-1,

Chennai. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.01.2004 made in W.P.M.P.No.25473 of 2003 in W.P.No.20430 of 2003. For Appellants : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, SC., for Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi For 1st Respondent : M/s Sree Krishna Associates JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.) The above writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.01.2004 made in W.P.M.P.No.25473 of 2003 in WP.No.20430 of 2003.

2. It is not in dispute that in WPMP.No.25473 of 2003 in W.P.No.20430 of 2003, the learned single Judge, while granting interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 10.06.2002 in O.A.No.640 of 2001 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, has directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of the said proceedings within a period of 12 weeks from 23.07.2003. The petitioner, without complying the conditional order passed by the learned single Judge, has challenged the same by way of an appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has brought to our notice that in WAMP No.1524 of 2004 in W.A.No.842 of 2004, the Division Bench of this Court has granted interim stay on condition to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as ordered by the learned single Judge within a period of one week from 10.03.2004. The learned counsel further represents that the said conditional order has duly been complied with.

4. In view of the same, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required in this appeal except making it clear that the stay order granted on 10.03.2004 shall continue till the disposal of the main writ petition.

5. The writ appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. W.A.M.P.No.1524 of 2004 is closed. raa


1.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,


2.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Tribunal-1,



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.