AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P., J
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer attached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, at the instances of the 2nd respondent bank.
The auction purchaser was suo-moto impleaded and notice was issued to the auction purchaser on the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners will settle the entire liability. When this matter came up for consideration on 21-12-2022, this Court passed following order:
“The order directing that the petitioner shall not be physically dispossessed will continue till 03.01.2023, on condition that the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-(Twenty five lakhs only) in a nolien account with the respondent bank on or before 02.01.2023. Post on 03.01.2023.”
When this matter taken up for consideration today, it is not disputed before me that the petitioners have not complied with the condition imposed in the order dated 21-12-2022.
Having regard to the afore said facts, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially considering the earlier litigation conducted by the petitioners before this Court.
The original petition fails, accordingly dismissed.