Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2004
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jun 2004
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 6221 of 2004 Between: 1 Vuradi Engineering Industries Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Mr.V.Govardhan Reddy, S/o V.Rama Reddy, R/o Plot No.148, Phase V, I.D.A. Jeedimetla, Ranga Reddy District. 2 M/s Chandravardhan Organics Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director V.Govardhan Reddy, S/o V.Rama Reddy, Situated at Plot No.B-9, MIDC, Chincholi, Sholapur - 413 255, Maharastra State. AND ..... PETITIONERS
1 The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Shastry Bhavan, R.P.Road, New Delhi. 2 State Bank of Hyderabad, Sholapur Branch, Tilak Chowk, Sholapur, Maharastra State, Represented by its Authorized Officer. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) striking down the constitutional validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, more particularly sections 13,17,18,32,34,35,37 and 41 thereof and (b) set aside the notice dated 22-1-2004 issued by the 2nd Respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, 2002 as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14,19(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG) Counsel for respondent No.2: None The Court made the following
ORDER:
(per Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, The Chief Justice) In view of the decision of 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 & ORS], 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 in this writ petition cannot be granted. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. _________________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ ______________________ __ G.ROHINI, J ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 30th June, 2004. // true copy // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Shastry Bhavan, R.P.Road, New Delhi. 2 Authorised Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Sholapur Branch, Tilak Chowk, Sholapur, Maharastra State. 3 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(g), 21, 226, 300A; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act; Securitisation Act, 2002 — s. 13(2); Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Jun 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.