Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANOOJ V.N., S/O.BEERAN versus THE CITY UNION BANK LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANOOJ V.N., S/O.BEERAN v. THE CITY UNION BANK LTD. - WP(C) No. 9875 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 11177 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9875 of 2007(A)

1. SANOOJ V.N., S/O.BEERAN,
... Petitioner

2. HYDROSE KOYA THANGAL,

Vs

1. THE CITY UNION BANK LTD.,
... Respondent

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

3. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,

For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL

For Respondent :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.9875 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'Act') in this writ petition. At the time of admission, by interim order dated 26.3.07, this Court passed interim order to the effect that if the petitioner remits at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) per month payable on or before 10th of every month commencing from April 2007, any sale on the basis of impugned notification shall not be confirmed for a period of three months. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said interim order has not been complied with. It is settled law that the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act is by way of filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as provided under the Act itself. The Supreme Court of India has held that this Court shall not ordinarily in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interfere with the proceedings under the Act. The W.P.(c)No.9875/07 2 petitioner has not been able to show any special circumstances which would warrant interference of this Court also. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.9875/07 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.