SAJU THOMAS v. CANARA BANK LTD
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6997 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJU THOMAS, S/O. P.P. THOMAS, AGED 41 YEARS, PELLISSERY HOUSE, AMMADAOM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: -------------
CANARA BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHENOY CHAMBERS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHENOY CHAMBERS, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
THE MANAGER, SSI BRANCH, CANARA BANK, KURIACHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SC, CANARA BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6997 OF 2008 - G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The complaint in this writ petition is against Ext. P4, a letter issued by the respondent bank informing that proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner submits that by Ext. P1 he had applied to the bank for rescheduling the loan and refers to Ext. P3 to contend that while Ext. P1 was pending consideration of the respondent bank, Ext. P4 was issued.
2. This submission made by the petitioner is factually incorrect for the reason that Ext. P2 letter has already been issued by the bank in reply to Ext. P1. it is true that Ext. P3 indicates that Ext. P1 was still pending. Though Ext. P3 was issued after Ext. P2 reply by the bank, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the bank submits that Ext. P3 was issued by the central office without noticing that by Ext. P2, Ext. P1 was already replied by the branch of the bank. In view of this, there is no merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. jan/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 04 Apr 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.