Palakoderu v. House Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying the High Court to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 11.2.2004 issued by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, pending W.P. No. 4202 of 2004 on the file of the High Court. For the Petitioner: MR.D.RAMALINGA SWAMY Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG) For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Addepalli Suryanarayana, Advocate. 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. 23rd day of June, 2004 To _____________________ DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ _____________ G. ROHINI, J.
#1. The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Shastri Bhavan, R.P. Road, New Delhi
#2. The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Bhimavaram Branch D.No.
22.16.72, Near Mavullamma Temple, Rest House Road, Bhimavaram, W G Dt.
#3. Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.