Public excerpt
the parties and the appeal may be allowed. It is submitted that the parties, authorized officer of the bank along with the Respondents are present in person. Let the compromise petition be verified by the Registrar,…
Parties: the parties and the appeal may be allowed. It is submitted that the parties, authorized officer of the bank along with the Respondents are present in person. Let the compromise petition be verified by the Registrar,…Pages: 2Characters (full): 2666
Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (CAMP-HYDERABAD)
(Regular Appeal No.78 of 2023)
(Arising out of SA.No.273/2018 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
Order No. 12
30.01.2025
Madireddi Malla Reddy … Appellant
-Vs-
Union Bank of India ….Respondent
Sri B.A. Prakash Reddy
Learned Counsel for Appellant
Sri A.V.S.S. Prasad
Learned Counsel for Respondents No.1&2
Sri P.Nanda Kishore
Learned counsel for Respondents No.3 to 5
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
A Joint Memo of Compromise is filed by the parties along with application
by the Bank to an effect that the matter has been settled between the parties
and the appeal may be allowed. It is submitted that the parties, authorized
officer of the bank along with the Respondents are present in person. Let the
compromise petition be verified by the Registrar, DRT-I, Hyderabad in his
chambers today and submit his report of verification today. Thereafter, the
matter shall be placed again today for passing appropriate orders.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J)
Chairperson
2.
Compromise petition has been verified by the Registrar, DRT-I, Hyderabad
and the same is placed before the Bench.
3.
The Joint Memo of Settlement is filed by the parties along with an
application by the Appellant Bank as well as the auction purchasers in both the
appeals No.14/2024 & 78/2023. The compromise memo is filed by the
Authorized officer namely Sri CRV Krishna Kishore who is duly identified by Sri
AVSS Prasad, Advocate. The Respondent No.1 represented through its
Proprietor Sri V.S.S. Srinivas is duly identified by Sri P. Nanda Kishore, Advocate.
Respondent No.2, Sri V.S.S. Srinivas and Respondent No.3 Smt V. Sridevi are
duly identified by Sri P. Nanda Kishore, Advocate. Respondent No.4 Sri M. Malla
Reddy is duly identified by Sri B.A. Prakash Reddy, Advocate. The compromise
petition has been verified by the Registrar, DRT-I, Hyderabad. Accordingly both
appeals No.14/2024 and 78/2023 are disposed of in terms of compromise filed by
the parties today which shall be made part of this judgement. All the
consequential reliefs would follow.
No Order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy
be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of
January, 2025.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J)
Chairperson
Dated 30th January, 2025