MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD v. UNION OF INDIA), challenge to the provisions of the Securitisation & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 300A
- Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
Judgment
Cause title
HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 18358 of 2003 Between: M/s.G.N.Products Pvt. Ltd., (Kotari Mills), Aluru Road, Adoni, rep., by its Managing Director, G. Naghabushana Rao ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Minister of Law, Sastri Bhavan, R.P.Road, New Delhi 2 Sree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Co-op. Bank Limited, No.72, Flower Bajar, Adoni, rep., by its Manager 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 a order or orders or a writ more particularly one in the nature .....RESPONDENTS
of writ of mandamus declaring the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, more particularly section 13(2) and 13(4) as invalid and violative of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently declare the notice under ref. No. SML Bank: and:3-4-;76 dated 24-6-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 132(2) of the Act as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1:
Mr. A.Rajasekhar Reddy, SC for CG. Counsel for the respondent No.2: Dr.P.B. Vijaya Kumar. 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. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & 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, the relief prayed for cannot be granted. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA. C.J., ____________ G. ROHINI. J., Dated: 15.07.2004. VRK. To 1 The Secretary to Union of India, Ministry of Law, Sastri Bhavan, R.P.Road, New Delhi.
The Manager, Sree Mahayogi Lakshmamma Co-op. Bank Limited, No.72, Flower Bajar, Adoni.
Two CD copies. HON’BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI. W.P.NO. 18358 OF 2003. ( Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble The Chief Justice ) Dt: 15.07.2004.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 226, 300A; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 Jul 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.