C.S. VARKEY v. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE NEDUMKUNNAM BRANCH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Jul 2008
- Bench
- S SIRI JAGAN
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
S. Siri Jagan, J.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=W. P (C) No. 25519 of 2006=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this, the 16th July, 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. However, the first prayer of the petitioner is as follows:
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent bank to consider the requests Ext. P5 and P7 for one time settlement of the loan account and to pass order therein in accordance with law with afurther direction that the proceedings evidenced by Ext. P6 be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on the above request.
2. Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that only symbolic possession has been taken and the further proceedings have not been proceeded with. In the above circumstances, the competent authority of the 1strespondent is directed to consider Exts. P5 and P6 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. 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: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 16 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.