✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sri Bollichetty Venkateswara Rao v. State Bank of India

Writ Petition No. 22047 of 2006G ROHINI

Case at a glance

Bench
G ROHINI

Outcome

Disposed of

expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of

Judgment

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in issuing notice dated 8.7.2006 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) as arbitrary and illegal.

Operative part

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the fact that the impugned notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act is only in the nature of a notice to show cause, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to make appropriate representation as provided under sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of the Act. If any such representation is made, the same shall be considered by the respondents in terms of sub-section (3-A) of Section 13 of the Act, and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (G. ROHINI, J.) 26th October, 2006. Kgr THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI 1 WRIT PETITION No.22047 OF 2006 26th October, 2006. Between: Sri Bollichetty Venkateswara Rao. .. Petitioner. And State Bank of India, represented by its Chief Manager (Advances & Mass Effluent) St. John Road Branch, Secunderabad. .. Respondent.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 22047 of 2006). ← Search more judgments