Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS versus THE CANARA BANK

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS v. THE CANARA BANK - WP(C) No. 18981 of 2007(I) [2007] RD-KL 10731 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18981 of 2007(I)

1. K.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE CANARA BANK,
... Respondent

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)No. 18981 OF 2007

Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P2 proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Act on the ground that notice issued is not in compliance with the relevant rules. The Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the petitioner has already filed one writ petition, in which, originally there was an interim order directing the petitioner to pay part of the amount, which has not been complied with. In spite of the same, the case was disposed of granting further time to the petitioner to pay the amount in instalments as per Ext.P3 judgment and those conditions also have not been complied with by the petitioner.

2. In the above circumstances, Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this writ petition should not be entertained.

3. After hearing both sides, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Sufficient indulgence has been shown to the W.P.(C)No. 18981 OF 2007 2 petitioner in the matter of payment of amount in instalments. In spite of the same, petitioner has not paid the amounts. That being so, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. In any event, it is settled law that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Second) Act 2002 has to be challenged in appeal before the appropriate authority. Without prejudice to such rights, this writ petition is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

ma W.P.(C)No. 18981 OF 2007 3


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.