Gadde Lakshmi Srinivas v. Delhi
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 15 Jul 2004
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 1879 of 2004 Between: Gadde Lakshmi Srinivas W/o. Srinivas Rao Door No. 50-49-43/4, Seethammadhara North Extension, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Finance Department, New Delhi. 2 The Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank Limited MainRoad, Visakhapatnam, rep., by its Authorised Officer/Branch Manager. .....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, declaring the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, more particularly Section 13(4) R/w Rule 8(1) as invalid and violative of rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently declare the notice dt. 20.11.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent U/Sec. 13 [4] of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to grant such other relief. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VENKATARATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No 1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG) Counsel for the respondent No.2: None appeared. 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
The Secretary to Union of India, Finance Department, New Delhi.
Two CD copies.
The Authorised Officer/Branch Manager, The Visakhapatnam Coop. Bank Ltd., Main Road, Visakhapatnam. HON’BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI. W.P.NO. 1879 OF 2004. ( 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 — art. 226; Reconstruction of Financial Asset and 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 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.