✦ Kerala High Court · 06 Dec 2007

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

WP(C) No. 30370 of 2007ANTONY DOMINIC2 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C) No. 30370 OF 2007 M= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 6th December, 2007J U D G M E N TThe grievance of the petitioner is in relation to Ext. P8 order passed by the 1st respondent. Petitioner submits that Ext. P5application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 was filed before the 1st respondent and he has declined to act upon the same. The reasoning for such attitude is that the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, in O.S. No. 1730/01 had already passed an order of attachment in respect of the property that is stated to have been mortgaged to the petitioner. In Ext. P8,the 1st respondent had also sought for the remarks of the petitioner and on behalf of the petitioner by Ext. P9 remarks have also been offered. Despite this, since final orders were not passed on Ext. P5this writ petition was filed complaining of the indifferent attitude of the 1st respondent. WPC No. 30370/07-2-2. Ext. P5 is a statutory application filed under Section 14 of the Act and therefore it is the duty of the 1st respondent to pass orders thereon, as his doubts on the maintainability of the application also stand clarified by Ext. P9. In view of this, I see no reason for the 1st respondent to delay the matter any further. 3. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the1st respondent shall pass final orders on Ext. P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment.ANTONY DOMINICJUDGEjan/-

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Securitisation andReconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of SecurityInterest Act, 2002 — s. 14.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Kerala High Court, on 06 Dec 2007. 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.

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. 30370 of 2007). ← Search more judgments