M/S Alladi Rock Drills v. Union of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Prudential Cooperative Bank Ltd., RP Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 C.P.C praying circumstances stated in the accompanying Affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice Ref…
Judgment
#2. Sri Alladi Sreenivasulu s/o A.Balaveeraiah, aged 53 years, Occ; Business, r/o 18-10-126, Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND
#1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Sastry Bhavan, R P Road, New Delhi.
#2. The Prudential Cooperative Bank Ltd., RP Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus striking down the Sections 13, 15 and 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act 2002 as they are illegal, arbitrary, violative of cardinal principles of natural justice as also set aside the notification dated 28-1-2003 of the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) by which the said Act 2002 is made applicable to Cooperative Banks in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as also Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides against the doctrine of election and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for Petitioners: MR. D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR S.Ashok Anand Kumar W.P.M.P. NO : 15803 of 2003 Between:
#1. M/S Alladi Rock Drills, rep by Alladi Sreenivasulu, r/o 118, Ground Floor, Chenoy Trade Centre, Parklane, Secunderabad-500 003.
#2. Sri Alladi Sreenivasulu s/o A.Balaveeraiah, aged 53 years, Occ; Business, r/o 18-10-126, Seethapalmandi, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND
#1. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Sastry Bhavan, R P Road, New Delhi.
#2. The Prudential Cooperative Bank Ltd., RP Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its Managing Director. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 C.P.C praying circumstances stated in the accompanying Affidavit, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice Ref No.PCB, RP/AR/Est/397 dt.6.5.2003 u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act 2002, issued by the 2nd respondent herein to the petitioner herein pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of Justice. Counsel for Petitioners: MR. D.V.BHADRAM Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR S.Ashok Anand Kumar 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. W.P.M.P.No.15803 of 2003 In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, interim directions stand vacated and the W.P.M.P. stands disposed of as such. _______________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ _____________________ G.ROHINI, J 17th June, 2004. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To
#1. Union of India, rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Law, Sastry Bhavan, R P Road, New Delhi.
#2. .2CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 17 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.