Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act v. UNION OF INDIA) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition under Section 151 CPC to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notices dated 17.2.2003 and 15-10-2003 issued by the respondentNo.2 under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, pending disposal of the Writ petition. For the Petitioner: MR.B.KRISHNA MOHAN, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG) For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Addepally Suryanarayana SC for ING Vysya Limited. The Court Made the Following : ORAL ORDER (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice) In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No. 92-95 of 2002, dated 8th April, 2004 (MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS), challenge to the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is not tenable and for that reason, relief prayed for cannot be granted. The Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. W.P.M.P. also stands dismissed. _____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ _____________ G. ROHINI, J. 23rd day of June, 2004 To.
#1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
#2. ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Main branch, Guntur. 3. Two C D copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Security Interest Act, 2002; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Apr 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.