Smt.A.Bujji v. Secretariat, New Delhi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying the High Court to direct the first respondent herein not to sell the property viz., Flat No. B-9, Prime Dwelling Apartments, road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in pursuance of the notice dated 6.12.2003 under Section 13, Sub Se. 2 of the Securitisaion and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 pending W.P.2366 of 2004 on the file of this High court. For the Petitioner: MR.M.SESHATALAPA SAI For the Respondent No.: MR.CH.RAVINDRA BABU 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
The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Vidyanagar Branch, Vidya Nagar, Hyderabad.
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, 3. Two C.Ds.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities 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.