M.A. Jabbar v. The Union of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4253 of 2004 Between: M.A. Jabbar, S/o. Sri M.A. Gani, R/o. H.No.1-10-149/A/4, Shasahab Gutta, Mahaboobnagar. AND ..... PETITIONER
The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Finance, New Delhi.
The State Bank of Hyderabad, Region - V, Zonal Office, Varakantham Complex, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad. Rep. by its, Chief Manager (Adv) (Authorised Official).
The State Bank of Hyderabad. ADB Mahboobnagar Branch, Mahboobnagar, Rep. by its 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 order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the provisions of Sections 13 and 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as invalid, arbitrary and violative of basic structure of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the provisions of Sections 13 and 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) are null and void and further direct the 2nd respondent to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dt.16-1-2004 to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.JAYASURYA For the Respondent No.1: Mr.A.Rajasekhar Reddy Standing Counsel for Central Govt. For the Respondents 2 & 3: Mr.K.Kesavardhan Reddy Standing Counsel for SBH. 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.
14.09.2004. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. VR. To
1. The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Manager (Adv.) (Authorised Official), State Bank of Hyderabad, Region - V, Zonal Office, Varakantham Complex, Kachiguda X Roads, Hyderabad. 3. The Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad. ADB Mahboobnagar Branch, Mahboobnagar.
Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Sep 2004. The bench was C V RAMULU.
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.