WP(C) No. 25443 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Sep 2008
- Bench
- S SIRI JAGAN
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Pursuant to that, a report has been filed by the Chief JudicialMagistrate in which, after stating the reasons for the delay, he has finally stated as follows: ............Today, on 01.09.08 when the case came up for consideration petitioner was represented by the Advocate and…
- Para 33. In view of the said report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition, except to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner within a period of one week…
Judgment
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C)No. 25443 OF 2008- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008JUDGMENTThe petitioner is a financial institution, which sought assistance of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, under Section 14 of TheSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. They filed this petition complaining of undue delay on the part of the Chief JudicialMagistrate in disposing of the petition filed by them. On 25.08.08, Ipassed the following interim order in the writ petition.
The Registry shall call for a report from the ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Kozhikode, as to what is the delay indisposing of Ext.P1 petition filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, when this Court had, in Sindhu v. State of Kerala [2008 (2)KLT 736] specifically laid down guidelines for disposal of such petitions.
Pursuant to that, a report has been filed by the Chief JudicialMagistrate in which, after stating the reasons for the delay, he has finally stated as follows:
............Today, on 01.09.08 when the case came up for consideration petitioner was represented by the Advocate and accordingly accepted the new proofAffidavit and allowed the petition as prayed for. I may kindly be excused for the inconvenience caused.
In view of the said report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition, except to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of production ofa copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 05 Sep 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.