MEENAKSHY AMMA v. AUTHORISED OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of withoutprejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the question oflimitation again in appropriate proceedings
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
S.SIRI JAGAN, J==============W.P.(C).No. 14868 OF 2008 ====================Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner, who is only a surety for loan amounts taken by respondents 3 and 4 from the 2nd respondent, bank, is challenging proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioner raises two contentions. Firstis that the bank should be directed to proceed first against the principal debtor, before proceeding against the petitioner, who is onlya surety. Second is that the debt is time barred and therefore proceedings under the Act cannot be proceeded with. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submit that the bank will proceed against the petitioner only after proceeding against the principal debtor first and the Bank is not able to realise the amounts from the principal debtor. This is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the question of limitation again in appropriate proceedings. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGEbkn/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of withoutprejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the question oflimitation again in appropriate proceedings
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcementof Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 01 Jul 2008. The bench was S SIRI JAGAN.
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.