D.Kaleshavali v. Bhavan, New Delhi
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Nov 2004
- Bench
- M NARAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6305 of 2004 Between: D.Kaleshavali, s/o D.Maboob Shaheb, r/o Vidyut Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. AND ..... PETITIONER
The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi.
The Indian Overseas Bank rep., by its Authorised Officer, 630, Mosque Road, V.V.Mahal Road, Tirupathi-517502.
The Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Ananthapur Branch, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and declaring Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, particularly Section 13 and Section 17 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(10(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the sale notice dt.6-3-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to conduct auction of the properties mentioned in the notice also as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.A.Rajasekhar Reddy, SC for Central Government Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3: Mr.K.Suryanarayana The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per The Honourable Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice) In view of the decision rendered by the Honourable 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.
22.11.2004. _____________________ M.NARAYANA REDDY, J. ARS To
1. The Secretary to Union of India, Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Sastry Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Authorised Officer Indian Overseas Bank, 630, Mosque Road, V.V.Mahal Road, Tirupathi-517502. 3. The Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Ananthapur Branch, Anantapur.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Enforcement of 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 22 Nov 2004. The bench was M NARAYANA REDDY.
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.