P.K.BABU v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Since, in my view, the petitioners do not have any locusstandi or any competence to challenge Ext.P1, I am not inclined to decide on the merits of the objections so raised. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGEmt/-
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1042 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. P.K.BABU, S/O. KURIAKOSE, AGED 29, PULIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PAMBAKUDA P.O., MEMMURY, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 667, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
VANCHINAD HOSPITAL CREDITORS FORUM, MECKENZIE GARDEN, FORT KOCHI - 682 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, SHRI. P.K.BABU. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION BRANCH, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 2. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION BRANCH, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
M/S. VANCHINAD HOSPITALS LTD., PONGUMOOD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR. B.RADHAKRISHNAN.
DR. B.RADHAKRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, VANCHINAD HOSPITALS LTD., PONGUMOOD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J.------------------------------------W.P.(C) 1042 of 2008-------------------------------------Dated: January 9, 2008JUDGMENTThe 1st petitioner claims to be a creditor of the 3rd respondent company and the 2nd petitioner describes itself to be a creditors'forum. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P1. 2. Ext.P1 is a notice published by the 1st respondent inviting tenders from the public for the sale of the immovable properties mortgaged by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent bank. 3. In my view, the petitioners, if at all are creditors, have no locus standi to object to the steps that are taken by the respondent bank for realising its dues invoking the powers that are conferred on them under the Securitization and Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent bank appearing on notice also alleges lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners. According to him this is a collusive petition filed at WP(C) 1042/2008Page numbers the instance of the 3rd respondent company.
Operative part
Since, in my view, the petitioners do not have any locusstandi or any competence to challenge Ext.P1, I am not inclined to decide on the merits of the objections so raised. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGEmt/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of FinancialAssets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 09 Jan 2008. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
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.