Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAIS AKHTAR AND ANOTHE R versus CORPORATION BANK

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rais Akhtar And Anothe R v. Corporation Bank - WRIT - C No. 4393 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1539 (31 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. R.P. MISRA,J.

HON.SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.N. Singh and Sri B.B. Singh for the respondents.

A notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 13 (3-A) of the aforesaid Act. According to the petitioner the same is pending. Para 8 of the writ petition containing this averment is quoted below:

"That till date no decision has yet been served to the petitioners on the aforesaid representation dated 9.6.2006 nor till date any further action as provided under Section 13(4) of the said Act for taking possession of the mortgaged immovable properties, (a) HouseNo.A-25/70-B, Saleempura, Varanasi and (b) House No.A-25/40, Saleempura, Varanasi has been taken. There is no news paper publication regarding taking of possession as provided in Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules2002 made under the Act."

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice under Section 13(4) cannot be issued to the petitioner until and unless the objection of the petitioner under Section 13 (3-A) is decided.

In view of above, until and unless the objection under Section 13(3-A) of the Act is decided, the auction of the house of the petitioner shall not be made.

With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.

31.1.2007

V.Sri/-

W.P. No.4393 of 2007


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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