Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38717 (AP)

M/s. Sarvaraya Textiles Ltd. v. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial

WP/29314/2012 · 2025-09-02

Sumathi Jagadam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010752992012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 29314/2012 Between: 1. M/S. SARVARAYA TEXTILES LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.B.P.S.KRISHNA MOHAN 2. S.B.P.S.KRISHNA MOHAN ,, S/O. S.B.P.V.CHALAPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MJS.SARVARAYA TEXTILES LTD, 12, ETHIRAJ SALAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL, RECONSTRUCTION, JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING, KASTURIBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI. 2. BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN, NO.1, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI. 3. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFEE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. ASSET SALE COMMITTEE, C/O. IDBI BANK LTD,., RECOVERY DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI - 400 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 5. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,' BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066 6. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, CPFO (BIFR CELL), HUDCO VISHALA, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 7. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND AND 3RD FLOORS, SRI LAKSHMI GOLDEN PLAZA, DANAVAIPET, RAJAMUNDRY -535 105. 8. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) VUDA LAYOUT, N. A.D POST, VISHAKHAPATNAM 530 009 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by 1st respondent dt:5-9-2012 in Appeal No.286/2010 and Appeal No.60 of 2011 confirming orders dt:8-9- 2010 in Case No.203/1998 and order dt:29-10-2010 in M.A.No.607/2010 passed by 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal contrary to the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Provisions) Act, 1985 and in violation of petitioner's rights guaranteed under Art.14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and allow the case No.203/1998 and M.A.No.607/2011 as prayed for IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 37419 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of orders dated 8-9-2010 in case No. 203/1998 and Order dated 29-10-2010 in M.A.No. 607 of 2010 in Case No. 203/1998 passed by respondent directing sale of land and buildings of petitioners Vizianagaram unit IA NO: 4 OF 2012(WPMP 179578 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VIKRAM POOSERLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) 2. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 3. B NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 03.09.2025 KAS