✦ Kerala High Court · 11 Aug 2008

WP(C) No. 17225 of 2008 · Kerala High Court

WP(C) No. 17225 of 2008S SIRI JAGAN2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
11 Aug 2008
Bench
S SIRI JAGAN

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed

Judgment

Operative part

S. Siri Jagan, J.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=W. P (C) No. 17225 of 2008=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 11th August, 2008.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 initiated by the respondents for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner to the Bank, on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and DebtRelief Scheme introduced by the Government of India as per Ext. P4. 2. A statement has been filed by the Bank stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy before this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India on account of the very fact that without the knowledge or permission from the Bank, the petitioner has already sold the mortgaged property. They would also submit that the petitioner had given several cheques in repayment of the instalments of loan amount, which bounced in respect of which proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending. The further contention in the statement is that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P(C) No.6317/2008 and this Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 lakhsto the Bank before 6-3-2008 and at the request of the petitioner, time to deposit the amount was extended also. But, he did not deposit the amount. Later on, he withdrew the writ petition on 6-6-2008 and now this writ petition has been filed claiming the benefit under the Agricultural Dept Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It is also pointed out that more than Rs. 35 lakhs are due from the petitioner. The above said facts stated in the written statement are not W.P.C. No. 17225/2008-: 2 :-disputed by the petitioner. In view of those admitted facts, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/[True copy]P.S to Judge.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002; Constitution of India — art. 226; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Kerala High Court, on 11 Aug 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.

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 Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. WP(C) No. 17225 of 2008). ← Search more judgments