AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These appeals are taken up for final hearing by the consent of Mr.Lokesh, K.V, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.V.V.Gunjal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2.
On the prayer of Mr.Lokesh, K.V, learned counsel for the appellant and at the risk of the appellant, notice of these appeals to the respondent no.3 is dispensed with.
Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for the respondent no.1.
In connection with the writ petition challenging the decision passed under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Hon''ble Single Judge directed restoration of possession of the property in question in favour of the respondent no.2.
The bank is aggrieved and, therefore, these appeals are filed.
There has been a stay of the operation of the order impugned, directing the bank to restore possession of the property in question to the respondent no.2.
However, Mr.V.V.Gunjal, learned advocate for the respondent no.2, submitted that the materials were lying inside the premises and we had permitted the respondent no.2. to take those items back.
We are informed jointly by Mr.Lokesh and Mr.Gunjal that the respondent no.2 has removed all the items from the disputed premises.
In such a situation, we feel that justice will be sub-served if these appeals are disposed of, requesting the Hon''ble Single Judge to dispose of the matters expeditiously.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of today, in relation to the property in dispute.
The writ appeals are, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.